Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

East Anglesey Gas Bill [Lords].

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Aberystwyth Rural District Council Bill (King's Consent signified),

Hastings Corporation General Powers Bill (King's Consent signified),

London Passenger Transport Board Bill (King's Consent signified),

Richmond (Surrey) Corporation Bill (King's Consent signified),

Read the Third time, and passed.

Torquay Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland Act, 1936, relating to Glasgow Corporation," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the London

Midland and Scottish Railway," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the number of able-bodied unemployed in the administrative county of Durham and the boroughs of Sunderland and South Shields taken over by the Unemployment Assistance Board on the appointed day, and the number left chargeable to the public assistance authorities?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the answer includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Information in respect of Local Government areas is not available but the following table shows, in respect of the Unemployment Assistance Board's administrative areas, in column (1) the number of persons in receipt of public assistance prior to the Second Appointed Day who have made applications for unemployment assistance allowances and who have been taken over from public assistance authorities, and in column (2) the number of such applicants held to be outside the scope of the Unemployment Assistance Act.

—
Column (1).
Column (2).


Durham District
2,754
1,481


South Shields:




Areas (1) and (2)
190
107


Sunderland:




Areas (1) and (2)
1,062
363

NOTE:—Durham District includes the board's administrative areas of Durham, Bishop Auckland, Chester-le-Street, Consett, Crook, Horden, Houghton-le-Spring, Spennymoor, Sunderland (1) and (2) and Pallion. The figures in respect of the Sunderland Areas (1) and (2) are accordingly included in those relating to the Durham District.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Labour whether unemployed persons in receipt of statutory benefit and supplementary grants from the Unemployment Assistance Board will receive in addition the special Coronation allowance from the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir.

Mr. White: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that these partial payments to those on statutory benefit will cause dissatisfaction?

Mr. Brown: That is another question.

UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour what rate of interest is now being paid on the interest of the funded debt of the Unemployment Fund; what rate of interest is being obtained on the current balance of the fund; and what annual saving would result if this balance were used to pay off an equal amount of the funded debt?

Mr. E. Brown: The current rate of interest on the outstanding debt of the Unemployment Fund averages about 3⅙ per cent. As from October, 1938, the rate will be 3⅛ per cent. At 24th April, 1937, the balance on the General Account of the Unemployment Fund was about £44,000,000, and in order that it may be readily available, if required, it is invested in short term securities on which the rate of interest averages about 1⅔ per cent. If this balance were applied to the reduction of the outstanding debt there would be no consequent reduction in the present charges on the Unemployment Fund, since the annual payments of £5,000,000 now made in respect of principal and interest would in accordance with the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, have to be continued without reduction, although of course for a smaller number of years. The balance cannot be applied to the reduction of debt without a recommendation from the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee to that effect and I would remind my hon. Friend of the remarks made by the committee on this subject in their last report.

Mr. Williams: Is it very good business to borrow money at twice the rates at which you lend money?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will realise that his supplementary question does not give an accurate account of the proceedings. This money was borrowed at different periods and in very different circumstances.

PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTING INDUSTRY.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour the cause of the continued high level of unemployment which was 42.7 per cent. at the end of March of persons recorded, belonging to the public works contracting industry?

Mr. E. Brown: The high rate of unemployment among insured persons recorded as belonging to this industry is mainly due to the fact that large numbers of unemployed workers from other depressed industries were temporarily engaged on public works set in hand for the relief of unemployment during the years 1930–32, and have not since found employment in some other industry. I may point out that the numbers actually in employment in the public works contracting industry are now considerably greater than in 1929.

Mr. Williams: Are these men concentrated in a few parts of the country, or are they distributed?

Mr. Brown: They are distributed very widely.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it the policy of the Government to discourage public works of this kind?

Mr. Brown: That is much too general a question to be answered now.

STATISTICS.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed at the last convenient date; the number of persons who were directly or indirectly employed at that date on any schemes initiated by the present Government; and what further proposals he intends making with a view further to mitigate unemployment?

Mr. E. Brown: The number of persons registered as unemployed, including temporarily stopped and casual workers, on 15th March was 1,601,201. As regards the second and third parts of the question, the policy of the Government has been to promote the general revival of industry; the effectiveness of this policy is evidenced


by the fact that since September, 1931, the number of unemployed has fallen by 1,223,571 and the number of insured persons in employment has increased by 1,904,000.

Mr. Day: Are there any special schemes for the employment of these men?

Mr. Brown: That is an entirely separate matter, and if the hon. Gentleman will put his question down, I will endeavour to give him the information he wants.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. David Grenfell: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider a scheme for training unemployed men in the South Wales Special Area in order that they may be fitted for work in the new industries which are to be established on the Treforest training estate?

Mr. E. Brown: A site for a training centre is being obtained on the Treforest estate. Another centre will shortly be opened at Oakdale, near Newport, Mon. At these centres, in addition to medical, dental and optical treatment, local men will receive preliminary training which should enable them to re-enter employment either locally or in other parts of the country. I anticipate that the training at these centres, which is designed to impart in a period of three months a factory sense and some knowledge of factory methods, will prove of real value to new industries being established in the district.

Mr. Grenfell: How many unemployed men are there to be catered for in the immediate future, say in the next six months?

Mr. Brown: I would like notice of that question.

RIVET-HEATERS, CLYDE.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the rivet-heaters who are at present unemployed through the strike at Greenock and Port Glasgow and elsewhere on the Clyde have received no assistance, though the majority of them are married men with families; and whether he has any statement to make on the situation?

Mr. E. Brown: The only cases of which I have information are those in which rivet-heaters are themselves on strike and

accordingly neither unemployment benefit nor unemployment assistance is payable to rivet-heaters unemployed at the works concerned. If the hon. Member has any other cases in mind. I should be glad if he would give me particulars and I will make inquiries.

Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some eight of these rivet-heaters were received into the poor house at Greenock on Monday and four on Tuesday, and that on Tuesday some 20 applications for admission to the institution were refused?

Mr. Brown: That may, of course, be so. If the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss the matter with me I shall be very glad to do so. The law is clear on the matter, and has been clear from the beginning of the Acts.

MUNITION WORKS, CHORLEY.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many unemployed persons have been found work in connection with the new munition works at Euxton, Chorley, through the employment exchanges at Aspull, Black-rod, Hindley, and Westhoughton, respectively?
(2) what is the trade union or other recognised wage standard for labouring work in connection with the Euxton, Chorley, munition works; and whether the imported Irish labourers are receiving that wage?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having inquiries made immediately and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these Government contractors in Chorley have been advertising in Irish newspapers for Irish labour? Is it not possible to insert a Clause in Government contracts to compel contractors to use the Employment Exchanges in the vicinity?

Mr. Brown: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has called my attention to this matter, but I have taken certain action with regard to it.

FORTY-HOUR WEEK CONVENTION.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour which countries have ratified the convention adopted by the International Labour Conference, 1935, laying down the principle of a 40-hour week?

Mr. E. Brown: According to the latest information available, the Forty-hour Week Convention, 1935, has not been ratified by any country.

Mr. Smith: Is this country likely to ratify the convention?

Mr. Brown: The view of the Government has been stated twice at Geneva.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the return of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry from the Washington Conference, he will state the attitude taken by His Majesty's Government to the proposal of a 40-hour week for the textile industry at the said conference?

Mr. Brown: The purpose of the conference at Washington was not to define the attitude of Governments towards the proposal for a 40-hour week for the textile industry, but to examine those aspects of the industry which might bear upon the improvement of social conditions of the workers employed therein. As soon as the report of the Washington Conference is received I will make it available to hon. Members. In the meantime I take this opportunity of saying that there is no foundation whatever for the report which appeared in certain newspapers to the effect that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement as to the policy of the Government with regard to a 40-hour week for the textile industry.

Mr. Leslie: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I say that I am glad he has cleared this matter up?

Mr. Brown: I certainly am glad, as I was quite sure the hon. Gentleman would be, too.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman make available not only the report of the Washington Conference, but also the text of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Brown: I will do that, because there was no foundation whatever for the statement made. The House knows that Transatlantic journalism is a very peculiar product.

Mr. Short: Do we understand that the Government are in favour of a 40-hour week in the textile industry?

Mr. Brown: That is another issue, which does not arise now.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SCOTTISH BANKERS' ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received from the Scottish Bankers' Association details in support of the charges made by the association against the Union Bank of Scotland of the use of methods of intimidation by the bank against their employés to prevent these employés exercising their legitimate right of collective bargaining; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir.

Mr. Leonard: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that these notices have been issued and become operative tomorrow, and that heavy overdraft charges will be involved to the Glasgow Corporation? In view of the dislocation that will be caused to the district generally, will not the right hon. Gentleman intervene now?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman asked me a particular question, and I gave him an answer. I have received from three members a long telegram in general terms, but I have not yet received the evidence.

Mr. Leonard: In view of the further evidence which I. have given the right hon. Gentleman that notices have been tendered and will become operative to-morrow, which may result in the industry becoming derelict, will he not intervene?

Mr. R. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving his mind to the inconvenience which a stoppage in this industry will cause to the shopkeeping community?

Mr. Brown: The Ministry of Labour keeps itself informed constantly on these matters.

ISLAND OF SOAY.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present position regarding the inhabitants of the island of Soay; and whether he has any statement to make regarding the requests put forward to him on their behalf?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): According to


my information there is no unrelieved distress on the island of Soay. There does appear to be need, however, of telegraphic communication with Skye and the Departments concerned are conferring with the district council with regard to a wireless link between Soay and Skye or the mainland.

Mr. Gibson: Can the Under-Secretary say what is the state of health of the inhabitants of the Island of Soay? Quite recently it was stated to be very bad indeed.

Mr. Wedderburn: We have no reason to accept that statement.

ROYAL VISIT.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is proposed to hold any parades of ex-service men in connection with the Royal visit to Scotland in July?

Mr. Wedderburn: The detailed arrangements for the Coronation visit to Scotland by the King and Queen are at present under consideration and I regret that I am not in a position to add to the announcements already made. I understand, however, that it is hoped that ex-service men will take part in the ceremonies which will mark Their Majesties arrival in Edinburgh on 5th July.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister consider arranging a parade of the unemployed?

SHORTHAND WRITERS, LAW COURTS.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Lord Advocate whether he has considered the charges for transcripts of shorthand notes taken in the Supreme Court of England, namely, 10d. a folio for the first copy and 2d. a folio for all other copies; whether he is aware that the corresponding charges in Scotland are much higher, as are also similar charges for transcripts in the sheriff courts in Scotland; and whether he proposes to take any and, if so, what steps to secure equally favourable treatment for litigants in the Scottish courts?

Mr. Wedderburn: It is the case that the charges for transcripts of shorthand notes proposed in the report of the committee recently set up by the Lord Chancellor are lower than those prescribed by Act of Sederunt in Scotland.

As was indicated in answer to a question by the hon. and learned Member on 6th April, the position is being watched in the light of experimental changes which are being made in England: but I am at present unable to say what changes, if any, may be feasible in Scotland.

Mr. Cassells: Can the Under-Secretary say when we may be able to get information on this very important subject?

Mr. Wedderburn: I cannot say.

DEBT RECOVERY, GLASGOW.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will set up a committee of inquiry into the many illegal and terroristic acts of debt recovery agents in Glasgow?

Mr. Wedderburn: On several occasions during the last two years reports have reached the Crown Office of oppressive conduct and abuse of legal process and diligence by debt recovery agents in Glasgow, and in two cases convictions have been obtained on a charge of attempting to extort money by threats. The powers of the civil courts to penalise oppressive conduct of this kind by awards of expenses, and of the criminal authorities to prosecute at Common Law or under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933, are, I am advised, sufficient to enable these abuses to be suitably dealt with. The hon. Member may rest assured that a prosecution will be taken in every suitable case. The Lord Advocate does not consider, however, that any useful purpose would be served by a committee of inquiry.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Under-Secretary aware that a number of cases have been reported by me to the Procurator-Fiscal and to the Lord Advocate, which show that even when the last payment of 2s. is tendered it has been refused by debt recovery agents in Glasgow and a summons is served and poinding notices take place; and in some cases people have paid as much as £7 for an original debt of 25s.? Is not that sufficient to justify him in setting up some inquiry into these oppressive and illegal actions?

Mr. Wedderburn: The circumstances to which the hon. Member refers are well known, but what we want is legal evidence of individual cases. The Lord Advocate does not feel that the setting


up of a committee of inquiry would help us to get legal evidence in individual cases.

Mr. McGovern: Will the Under-Secretary convey to the Lord Advocate the suggestion that he himself should go to Glasgow, not in an official way, make inquiries into the allegations which are being made and see whether any action is necessary?

Mr. Wedderburn: My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the allegations which are being made but before we can get a conviction we must get legal evidence which relates to the individual case. That is the difficulty.

Mr. Cassells: May we take it that the Lord Advocate considers that these cases are covered by the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933?

Mr. Wedderburn: That is only one of the means I have mentioned as dealing with these cases.

FASCIST MEETING, WHITECHAPEL.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the provocative character of the speeches made at a Fascist meeting held in Glasshouse Street, Whitechapel, on 14th April, and the Jew-baiting carried on by the marchers during the demonstration which followed; and whether he will take steps to prevent an increase of disorder because of the renewal of this method of propaganda?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): Only one speech was made at the meeting referred to. A shorthand note was taken of it, and the Commissioner of Police informs me that, on consideration of the report, he decided, in all the circumstances, not to institute proceedings, but that he has given instructions that special attention should be paid to future speeches by this individual, and prompt action will be taken if he offends against the law. After the meeting a clash took place between Fascists and their opponents, who appear to have sung their rival songs at each other, and some isolated fights occurred, as a result of which six arrests were made. I am satisfied that the Commissioner is

taking, and will continue to take, every possible step to maintain order and to prevent any recurrence of the troubles which occurred last year.

Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, following the meeting, the procession which takes place is responsible for an amount of Jew-baiting and provocative utterances which leads to more trouble than the things said at the meeting; and will he be prepared to see that provocative conduct is put an end to, in accordance with the terms of the Act which was passed last year?

Sir J. Simon: I certainly have every intention, and so has the Commissioner, of enforcing the law.

CLUBS BILL.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to state whether the proposed Bill for controlling bogus clubs is to be introduced during the current Session; and whether it is proposed to consult the various clubs and licensing interests while the Bill is still in draft form?

Sir J. Simon: As regards the first part of the question, I am not at present in a position to add anything to my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvon (Major Owen) on 18th February. As regards the second part, I have received detailed representations and suggestions as to the contents of the proposed Bill from the interests referred to, and these are being taken into careful account.

CORONERS' INQUIRIES (MORTUARY ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. C. Wilson: asked the Home Secretary upon whom the responsibility rests for deciding in the case of death by accident or other misadventure where the body shall be deposited and where any post-mortem examination directed or requested by the coroner shall take place?

Sir J. Simon: By Section 24 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926, a coroner may, for the purpose of a postmortem examination, order that the body be removed to any place which may be provided for the purpose, either within his jurisdiction or within an adjoining coroner's jurisdiction; but he may not under that Section order the removal to


any place other than a place within his jurisdiction provided by a sanitary authority or nuisance authority except with the consent of the person or authority by whom the place is provided.

Mr. Wilson: If I bring to the right hon. Gentleman's notice a number of cases which show that the position is very unsatisfactory, will he have the whole matter investigated?

Sir J. Simon: I will certainly make any investigation that I can make of any cases which the hon. Gentleman thinks he ought to bring to my notice.

Mr. Wilson: asked the Home Secretary the number of coroners' districts; whether in each of them there is a mortuary; or, if not, whether any arrangement exists for the use of a mortuary in an adjoining district?

Sir J. Simon: The number of coroners' districts, including franchise coronerships, is 339. I regret that I have not the detailed information which would be necessary to enable me to answer the remainder of the question.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, WALES.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Home Secretary the number of persons who have died of capital punishment in Wales during 1920 and each year to date?

Sir J. Simon: From 1920 to date, seven persons have been executed in prisons in Wales, namely, one in each of the years 1920, 1921, 1926 and 1931, and three in 1928.

Mr. James Griffiths: Does not the lowness of the figure prove that Wales is the most civilised part of the country?

JUVENILE OFFENDERS (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT).

Mr. Short: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a further six boys were ordered to be birched by the West Riding juvenile court, Doncaster, on 21st April; whether the sentences have been carried out; and whether he will now reconsider his decision not to advise magistrates not to impose such sentences having regard to the appointment of the committee of inquiry?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir. Six boys were ordered on 21st instant to be birched. Five have been birched, and the police surgeon found that the sixth was unfit for the punishment. I cannot do more than say that I am sure that justices will realise that I regard the whole subject as one which needs investigation.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the boy who was not fit to be birched on the day when the other five were birched has been invited to attend the police court on Tuesday next to be birched?

Hon. Members: Has he accepted?

Mr. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard it as consistent with the law for a boy to be sent home and be called upon to return a week later to receive his birching?

Sir J. Simon: That, of course, is quite a separate question, which does not arise out of the Question on the Paper. I do not know the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, but will make inquiries.

Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have sent the full circumstances of this case to the Home Office, and will he be good enough to look into them?

Sir J. Simon: indicated assent.

Mr. Short: Would the right hon. Gentleman send a circular to clerks of the peace calling their attention to the fact that he has set up this committee of inquiry?

Sir J. Simon: I could not do that; the fact is perfectly well known, and I think that, when an inquiry has been set up, it is very essential that the authorities should not seem to pronounce judgment before the inquiry is completed.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the right hon. Gentleman have some of these boys birched here, so that Members may see?

Viscountess Astor: May I remind the Home Secretary that in Russia they shoot these boys?

Mr. McGovern: What do they do with them in America?

CONTEMPT OF COURT.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether there are any persons in Great Britain who have been committed to prison for contempt of court and have been so imprisoned for a period of more than three months?

Sir J. Simon: One, Sir.

MOBILE POLICE (UNIFORM).

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary what, if any, changes are contemplated in the near future in the uniform or dress of mobile police in the Metropolitan police area?

Sir J. Simon: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that authorised drivers of police motor vehicles have recently been permitted to wear shoes instead of boots while driving, and that an experiment is being made with a new type of waterproof trouser for motor-cyclists. The suitability of the present coats and hats worn by motor-cyclists is also under review.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that these mobile police will not wear civilian clothes?

THE CORONATION.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary the attitude of the Metropolitan police towards the holding of open-air street tea parties to celebrate the Coronation; and whether instructions will be issued to the Metropolitan police not to prohibit these gatherings?

Sir J. Simon: The Commissioner of Police informs me that he has issued to his force instructions on this subject, the effect of which is that the police will not interfere in cases where there is no objection on the part of the local authority concerned or where, from the traffic point of view, there is no objection to the use of the street in question, and provided always that there is no disorder or annoyance to local residents and that reasonable precautions are taken to guard against accidents.

Mr. Mander: Will similar facilities be given in the Provinces, where they would be very much appreciated?

Sir J. Simon: Perhaps what we are doing here may be regarded as a good example.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (DATE).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary when he intends seeing a deputation of the Association of Municipal Corporations in connection with the municipal elections being held on the first Monday in May instead of them being held on 1st November?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Lloyd): I had arranged to receive the deputation last Thursday, but the decision of the Standing Committee which is considering the Factories Bill to sit in the afternoons as well as in the mornings made it impossible for me to receive the deputation as originally arranged. I hope to be in a position in the near future to fix another date.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Captain Arthur Evans: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to make information available regarding the question of air-raid shelters affording protection against gas and against splinters from high-explosive bombs and the, possibility of constructing underground garages and rendering them proof against incendiary bombs and poison gas?

Mr. Lloyd: I am unable at present to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend's question on this subject on 18th March.

Captain Evans: Can my hon. Friend give any indication when he will be in a position to make a statement on this all-important question?

Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid I cannot. A very great deal of work is proceeding, and it is a very complicated subject.

WOODWORK FACTORIES, HULL (GIRL WORKERS).

Mr. Muff: asked the Home Secretary whether he will call for a report from the Hull inspector of factories as to the conditions of labour and pay of young girls working on piece rates at woodwork factories in Hull?

Sir J. Simon: Rates of pay are outside the scope of the factory inspector's duties, but, if the hon. Member will send me particulars of any complaints he may have received as to the working conditions, I shall be glad to consider them.

HARWORTH COLLIERY DISPUTE.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Home Secretary whether he has made any further inquiries concerning the disturbances at Harworth during the last weekend; and whether he will make investigations into the repeated allegations of irregular police methods during the period of this industrial dispute?

Sir J. Simon: Since this matter was mentioned at the end of questions on Monday last, I have had a report from the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire, upon whom, of course, the responsibility rests in this matter. The disciplinary control of the conduct of the provincial police is, of course, not a matter for which the Home Office is responsible. The Chief Constable informs me that proceedings are pending against a number of persons who were involved in the disturbances at Harworth during the week-end, and members of the police forces will be witnesses and will be subject to cross-examination. I could not properly make a statement on this matter in the meantime. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Member has sent me a pamphlet dated in March last discussing the earlier action of the police in the area, and I will communicate with him as soon as possible about it.

Mr. Bellenger: While acknowledging the right hon. Gentleman's action, may I ask him whether he is aware that bitter resentment is felt in the locality, not confined to any one class, at the callous, one-sided methods adopted by the police in this dispute?

Sir J. Simon: That must, of course, he partly a matter of opinion, upon which probably there are different views, and partly a question of fact. As far as the facts are concerned, I should think that the proceedings which are being taken are likely to bring the facts out.

Mr. T. Williams: May I ask whether, apart from the police court proceedings, the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire

is instituting an inquiry into the general conduct of the local police which led to the disorders of last Friday and Saturday?

Sir J. Simon: The hon. Gentleman ended his question with an assertion. I am not to be understood as accepting it. I have communicated with the chief constable, and he has sent me a report of what has happened.

Mr. Paling: Is there any truth in the report in the newspapers about the police going to a dance hall and making arrests, which led to the trouble?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that proceedings are pending.

Mr. Paling: The Home Secretary said that he had a report from the chief constable. I am asking whether a certain fact is mentioned in that report.

Sir J. Simon: I could not give an accurate answer about that; my recollection is that the report shows that some persons were in a dance hall when the police asked them to come out and executed the warrants on them.

Mr. T. Williams: Is any reference made in the report to the midnight court held on Saturday to deal with the six persons who were apprehended; and, further, is that a normal course to adopt?

Sir J. Simon: If I understand it rightly, that is a question about the procedure of the court. That is not a matter on which I could express any opinion.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Home Secretary how many persons have been prosecuted in connection with the disorder at Harworth on Friday and Saturday last; how many were persons who were on strike; and how many were working at Harworth Colliery?

Sir J. Simon: I am informed by the chief constable of Nottinghamshire that 34 persons have been charged with offences against Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, arising out of the disorder at Harworth on Friday, the 23rd instant. All these persons were on strike. No proceedings have yet been instituted in respect of the occurrences on Saturday, the 24th instant.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Does this show that strict impartiality is observed?

Sir J. Simon: It surely depends on the facts.

Mr. Bellenger: Why were these proceedings taken under the Conspiracy Act while previous proceedings have been taken under the Public Order Act?

Sir J. Simon: I really cannot answer that question. I imagine they are taken under what is thought to be the appropriate Section of the appropriate Statute. Whether that is right or wrong will be decided in the proceedings themselves.

Mr. Paling: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the facts sent to him by the chief constable?

Sir J. Simon: I prefer to wait until the facts have been investigated by the Judicial Tribunal.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point raised. It is not a question of proceedings against the police or police action.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has put his question. If the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible, he cannot be expected to give an answer.

Mr. Gallacher: Am I not allowed to ask if no police have been arrested for forcing their way into a dance hall on Saturday?

Mr. Speaker: There have already been at least six supplementary questions, and that seems sufficient.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the grave situation in Harworth, which may involve the nation in a widespread industrial stoppage in the mining industry, he can make any statement on the progress of negotiations; and whether he will undertake that His Majesty's Government will make every effort to secure a satisfactory settlement of the dispute?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): The right hon. Member may be aware, from reports in the Press, that representatives of the different parties concerned in this dispute, namely, the Nottinghamshire Colliery Owners, the

Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain and the Nottinghamshire Miners' Industrial Union, are respectively meeting the Secretary for Mines at the Mines Department to-day. I need hardly repeat that, as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend in the House of Commons on 13th April, His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the seriousness of the situation. The Mines Department have been closely in touch with the various parties throughout the dispute, and I am satisfied that everything possible is being done to find a solution of this very difficult problem.

Mr. Greenwood: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the possibility of unfortunate developments this week-end and the need for a debate in this House early next week?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly bear that in mind, but I very much hope that it will not be necessary.

POLICE PENSIONS.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the communication from the National Association of Retired Police Officers as regards police pensions; and what action he proposes to take to redress their grievances?

Sir J. Simon: This communication has only just been received; but I should say at once that the proposals which it makes for the grant of pensions to widows of police who left the various forces before the passing of the Police (Pensions) Act, 1918, which granted pensions to widows of men then serving or joining subsequently, and for the grant of pensions based on present rates of pay to men who left the forces before those rates were applied, have been examined many times by successive Governments, but it has never been possible to hold out hope of the necessary legislation being passed to give effect to them.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the Home Secretary reconsider the whole matter on representations from the National Association?

Sir J. Simon: The communication comes, I think, from the National Association. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it follows the representations


made to successive Governments, and I am afraid I cannot add to my answer.

Mr. Thorne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think these men are entitled to an increased allowance on account of the cost of living?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this class of persons is rapidly diminishing and many of them are living in great poverty? Will he not see whether it is possible to do something for these forgotten people?

Sir J. Simon: It is a question really of what the Statute Law provides, and not a question whether we feel or do not feel sympathy with a particular case. I am sorry, but the provisions of the Police Act, 1918, and other Acts lay down the limit of my powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT (SILKBURN COAL COMPANY).

Sir John Birchall: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to take criminal proceedings against the Silkburn Coal Company for ordering their drivers to take out lorries when in an unfit condition, resulting in the death of a boy while standing on a street refuge?

Sir J. Simon: The question whether there are or are not grounds for a prosecution in any case is not one which I have any authority to decide, and I have no power to direct that any prosecution shall or shall not be instituted. I have, however, made inquiries about this case, and I understand the facts were as follow: The Coroner's jury found a verdict of accidental death. The Chief Constable considered the question whether proceedings should be instituted for manslaughter and took legal advice. As a result it was decided that there were no sufficient grounds for preferring a charge of manslaughter; but proceedings were taken against the company for breaches of the Road Traffic Act and resulted in a conviction.

CYCLE TRACKS.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Transport whether it is his intention to make it compulsory for pedal cyclists to use the special cycle tracks now provided on the Great West Road and other similar

roads with the object of reducing the present high rate of casualties?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): It is not my right hon. Friend's intention. Observation shows that it is exceptional for cyclists not to use these tracks.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: In view of the extraordinary reply, it is my intention to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SIZE OF CLASSES.

Mr. Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will seek information concerning what regulations as to the size of classes are now in operation in elementary schools in Germany; and whether he can give information as to the extent of the reduction in the size of these classes in recent years?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Conditions vary considerably between one State and another. I am sending the hon. Member such information as the board possess, which cannot easily be summarised in an answer to a Parliamentary question.

Viscountess Astor: Do many of them have classes over 40?

Mr. Stanley: Oh, yes. The figure is very different from 40.

Mr. Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give any estimate of the number of years which must elapse under existing conditions before all classes in elementary schools are reduced to a maximum of 40 children in a class?

Mr. Stanley: The factors to be taken into account are too uncertain to enable me to form any reliable estimate of the number of years which must elapse under existing conditions before all classes in elementary schools are reduced to a maximum of 40 children in a class, a figure which, as the hon. Member will be aware, is at present applicable only to classes for senior children.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, LONDON.

Mr. Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can


state the number of empty class-rooms in the elementary schools of the county of London?

Mr. Stanley: I regret that I have no information which would enable me to give a precise answer to the hon. Member's question. The fall in the child population has set free a large amount of school accommodation in London, and advantage is being taken of this to improve teaching conditions by enlarging rooms, revising standards of accommodation and other similar measures.

BENEFICIAL EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. White: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will invite the National Advisory Council under the Physical Training and Recreation Act to state the occupations which in their view are beneficial employment for children and young persons; and whether he will make their views on the matter available to local education authorities for their guidance when granting exemptions from school attendance under the Education Acts?

Mr. Stanley: Before granting employment certificates local education authorities are required by Section 2 of the Education Act, 1936, to consult the local committee for juvenile employment. These committees must, in the nature of things,

England and Wales.


—
Number of Vaccinations expressed as a percentage of Total Births.
Smallpox Cases Notified.
Smallpox Deaths Registered.


1926
…
…
…
44·8
10,146
18


1927
…
…
…
44·9
14,767
47


1928
…
…
…
42·6
12,420
53


1929
…
…
…
39·9
10,968
39


1930
…
…
…
40·1
11,839
28


1931
…
…
…
39·0
5,664
9


1932
…
…
…
38·2
2,039
3


1933
…
…
…
37·0
631
2


1934
…
…
…
36·1
179
6


1935
…
…
…
*
1
0


* Figures not yet available.

OFFICES (CONDITIONS).

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Health when the promised Circular regarding the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, which relate to the regulation of the conditions in offices will be issued?

be more conversant with conditions of local employment than the National Advisory Council, and I do not, therefore, see my way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

BROADCASTING (LINCOLN).

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Education how many schools in the city and county of Lincoln possess facilities for listening-in to broadcasts?

Mr. Stanley: According to the register of schools kept by the Central Council for School Broadcasting, the numbers of schools of all categories in the city and county of Lincoln possessing facilities for listening-in to broadcasts are 10 and 128 respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

VACCINATION AND SMALLPDX.

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Health the percentage of babies vaccinated for the past 10 years; the number of cases of smallpox recorded in such period; and the numbers proving fatal?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Sir K. Wood: The Circular will be issued on 1st May.

HOSPITAL TREATMENT, STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Health the present position with regard to


the protests against the arrangements made by the Staffordshire County Council in Wednesfield, Willenhall, and other districts for the treatment of invalids and old people; and whether he will endeavour to arrange that negotiations should be reopened between the Staffordshire County Council and the Wolverhampton Borough Council, with a view to arrangements being made for Wednesfield and Willenhall residents to have the same facilities for obtaining treatment at the New Cross Institution as were possible prior to 1st April, 1937?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to his question about these arrangements on the 8th instant. I am in communication with the county council regarding the representations which I have since received on this subject, and will inform him further of the position when I have received their reply.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is still plenty of room in the New Cross Institution where invalids can go in a few minutes instead of having to travel 14 miles to Wordsley?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

MONETARY POLICY.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will request the Economic Advisory Council to consider the cost over the coming year to taxpayers, producers, and consumers of a five points rise beyond 190 in the staple commodity index number; to consider the increased national expense of a half per cent. per annum rise for the current year in the cost of estimated fresh Government borrowing; and to contrast the advantages of the present cheap rate of money with the disadvantages in the cost of rearmament and the disadvantages in the cost of living, increased by a rise in prices, caused by cheap money?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): I do not think that it is possible to contrast the advantages of different policies by any such method as my hon. Friend suggests. The test of present policy is whether industry and employment are improving, as they clearly are at the present time.

INCOME TAX

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether expenditure by owners of factories and works on air raid precaution schemes in respect of such premises is now treated as an allowable expense for Income Tax purposes; and, if such is not the case, whether he will make provision in the Finance Bill allowing such expenditure?

Mr. Chamberlain: Expenditure of the kind referred to, unless in the nature of capital expenditure, would already be admissible as a deduction in computing the profits of a trader for Income Tax purposes.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why that is allowable? Is this not capital expenditure on the provision of factories?

Mr. Chamberlain: I said unless it was in the nature of capital expenditure.

FINANCE BILL.

Captain A. Evans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether having regard to the uncertainty which must continue while fundamental questions concerning the scope and application of the National Defence Contribution tax remain undetermined, he can now give any indication of the probable date of publication of the Finance Bill, and so alleviate the anxiety which is causing serious concern to the tramp-shipping and industrial community generally in South Wales who have not enjoyed the full benefit of the prosperity period?

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can indicate what is the probable date when the Finance Bill will be available in print?

Mr. Chamberlain: I hope to make the Finance Bill available to the House by the date of re-assembly on 24th May.

Captain Evans: In view of the continued anxiety which still exists in the City, in spite of my right hon. Friend's assurance on the Budget Resolution on Tuesday night, will it be possible for my right hon. Friend to publish the essential features of the National Defence Contribution before that date?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not the fact that the attack upon the Chancellor of the


Exchequer by the City is from an entirely different motive than that expressed by the Opposition?

Mr. Chamberlain: I will lose no time in formulating my proposals, but I should not like to pledge myself to any particular date.

Mr. Mander: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer stand firm, and not allow himself to be bullied too much by his supporters?

SURTAX (ARREARS).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of Surtax payers who are in arrears with the tax which was due on 1st January, 1937; and what is the total amount of tax involved?

Mr. Chamberlain: Particulars of the numbers of Surtax payers in arrears are not available. The amount of Surtax in assessment for the year 1935–36 which was outstanding at 31st March, 1937, was £7,060,000.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to the expansion of the television service, he will favourably consider the issue of a loan for such purpose by the British Broadcasting Corporation, such loan being a first charge on the Corporation's income from radio licences?

Mr. Chamberlain: I am not aware that the Corporation has any such proposal in mind. It would, therefore, be premature for me to express any opinion upon it.

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR CONFERENCE.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will make a statement of the results obtained up to date at the International Sugar Conference?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The Sugar Conference yesterday agreed to a system of national export quotas for the supply of the free world sugar market; negotiations are still proceeding.

MINING ROYALTIES.

Mr. White: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of impending legislation on the subject of mining royalties, he proposes to publish the evidence given before the Special Tribunal on Mining Royalties?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Tribunal decided that the proceedings should not be public.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that many sections of the Geological Survey are nearly 100 years old or more since the last revision; and whether the Government will so increase the staff as to enable a reasonably up to date standard to be maintained throughout all parts of the country?

Mr. R. MacDonald: The Geological Survey is intended for economic as well as for scientific purposes. It is not surprising, therefore, that some areas have been surveyed on several occasions and others have had little or no revision. About 13 per cent. of the area of Great Britain is represented by Geological Survey maps of about 8o years ago. Another 9 per cent., in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, has still to be surveyed. About 15 years ago the scientific field staff, which now numbers 5o, was increased by 5o per cent. The staff of the Geological Survey and Museum numbers 155, as compared with 82 in 1920. The work of the Survey and the staff employed was specially reviewed by the Advisory Council in 1933, and I have recently asked for further information.

Mr. Kelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when he has that report before him, it will be made known to the House, as there is urgent need for this staff to be increased in order to complete this work?

Mr. MacDonald: If it seems at all necessary and sufficiently important, I shall certainly communicate it to the House.

COMMODITIES (SPECULATION).

Mr. Liddell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that


the recent adjustment of quotations has disclosed heavy speculation in commodities with no economic justification; and whether he will therefore consider a higher Stamp Duty on transactions in base metals, rubber and other commodities unless covered by documentary declaration that they are bought for immediate manufacture, so that rearmament costs may not be increased by speculation facilitated by cheap money?

Mr. Chamberlain: I have considered my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I am afraid that it is not a practicable one for the purpose he has in view.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the satisfactory results arising out of the currency agreement made some months ago between the United States of America, France and Great Britain, he will consider the desirability of reopening discussions with a view of reaching a War Debt understanding?

Mr. Chamberlain: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) on 19th January last, to which at present I have nothing to add.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not the fact that the reason for not arriving at an understanding is because this country is not on the Gold Standard?

Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman read the very rude comments that are sometimes made by the Americans in consequence of that fact?

Mr. Chamberlain: I never read rude comments.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Leach: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered the copy sent to him of a resolution of the Eastbourne Pensions Committee, and supported by other committees, asking for a reform of the old age pensions law so as to provide a fairer method of calculating the means of persons who have been inmates of Poor Law institutions or mental hospitals; and whether he is prepared to comply with the wishes so expressed?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The resolution to which the hon. Member refers is presumably that which asked that the cost of maintenance should be excluded in calculating the means of a pensioner who is in a Poor Law institution for medical or surgical treatment and that the disqualification in certain circumstances from receipt of pension of a person in a mental hospital should be removed and the cost of his maintenance there disregarded in calculating his pension. This would have the effect of giving the pensioner free maintenance as well as a pension calculated on the basis that he is maintaining himself; and in so far as the pension is appropriated by the local authority, it would operate merely as a grant in aid of local expenditure. I am afraid, therefore, that the Government are not prepared to introduce the legislation which would be necessary to effect these changes.

Mr. Leach: Is it not reasonably argued that old age pensioners who need medical or mental treatment of this sort are in such poor conditions and circumstances that they should have this concession made by the Government?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have given the hon. Member a long and careful answer, and I am afraid that I cannot add to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MACHINERY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken by the Ministry to ensure the efficient equipping of farms with machinery in order to maintain and improve output and assist the production of home-grown foodstuffs?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the equipping of farms with machinery is a matter for farmers themselves.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it possible to produce more home-grown foodstuffs without the right sort of machinery; and is he aware of the complete and abject state of poverty of the agricultural industry?

Mr. Liddall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the best agricultural machinery can be obtained at Lincoln on the instalment system?

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what cannot be obtained at Lincoln can be obtained at Thirsk?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the fact that agricultural machinery is important to the industry and also of the excellent facilities to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

PIG INDUSTRY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the House an assurance that the pig industry will not be allowed to go for another season without some concrete plan to deal with the situation in the country being available?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the question he put on 8th April.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the complete failure to get any concrete plan, I propose to raise the question at the first opportunity on the Adjournment?

BUTTER (PRODUCTION).

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the estimated output of butter by the Milk Marketing Board during the next three years; and what has been the effect of the increased butter production of the board upon imports of butter into this country and upon home production, respectively?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am unable to state what is likely to be the output of butter during the next three years from factories operated by the Milk Marketing Board. As to the second part of the question, the output of the board's factories during 1936 represented a negligible proportion of the available supplies and I cannot imagine, therefore, that it has had any appreciable effect either upon imports or upon home production.

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many times the Poultry Advisory Committee has met within the last 12 months; and what were the subjects discussed on each occasion?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Poultry Advisory Committee has met twice during the last 12 months. The subjects discussed on the first occasion, 25th June, 1936, were certain poultry diseases, and various Orders relating to poultry and eggs, which were proposed at the time and have since been issued. On the second occasion, 16th April, 1937, proposals for prohibiting the exposure of diseased poultry at markets and sales were considered.

Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Poultry Board that they will always be here as long as food is coming in from abroad, and will he also tell them that there are too many chickens on the land at the moment?

AVIATION (DE-ICING DEVICES).

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether methods for preventing the formation of ice on aeroplanes by chemical means are being investigated; and, if so, whether such means appear to be more promising than the devices for de-icing, which allow the ice to form and then endeavour to break it off?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon): A large number of chemical substances have been tested as ice preventatives and experiments continue. At present it cannot be said that methods employing chemical substances are superior to mechanical devices for deicing.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WESTLEIGH COLLIERIES.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is in a position to state what is the intention of the owners of Westleigh collieries regarding the opening of the collieries which have been stopped several months?

Commander Southby (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply as my hon. and gallant Friend is detained elsewhere at important meetings. He is informed by the colliery company that negotiations are still continuing.

Mr. Tinker: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the closing down of pits lead to the creation of depressed


areas, and will he ask his hon. and gallant Friend to pay attention to this matter and consult the Cabinet to put a stop to it?

Commander Southby: I will convey the hon. Member's remarks to my hon. and gallant Friend.

SILICOSIS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give any information regarding the claim made by the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy that recent researches made by the institute have resulted in discoveries which a re capable of reducing the incidence of silicosis in mines by 90 per cent.; and, if the claim is substantially verified, whether he proposes to take steps to enforce the use of this discovery in the mines of the country?

Commander Southby: In the absence of my hon. and gallant Friend, and as the reply to this question is a somewhat lengthy one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. and gallant Member convey to the Secretary for Mines that statements of this kind which create hopes and expectations among men suffering from this disease should be conveyed to the Government first?

Commander Southby: I would ask the hon. Member to await the report.

Following is the reply:

I understand that in a speech last Thursday the President of the Institute pointed out that among certain categories of miners on the Rand the incidence of silicosis in 1935 was 90 per cent, less than in the period 1920–23. This improvement is attributable to preventive measures, e.g., as regards drilling and shot-firing, which are already applied in this country where risk of silicosis is to be apprehended with the exception that there is no system of initial or periodical medical examinations. The President also made mention of quite recent developments in research into methods of collecting and examining samples of dust from the air. But this was not suggested to be a case of cause and effect, and the researches referred to have not yet reached the stage of providing further preventive measures of practical application.

ROYALTIES.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary for Mines the gross receipts for coal royalties for each of the last five years, and the net receipts after payments of statutory levies and other charges against royalties, except Income Tax?

Commander Southby: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The estimated amounts paid by colliery owners in Great Britain in royalties and wayleaves (including the rental value of freehold mineral where worked by the proprietors) during the years 1932 to 1936 are as follow:


Year.
Amount.



£


1932
4,828,000


1933
4,821,000


1934
5,016,000


1935
4,990,000


1936
5,027,000 (revised figure)

I regret that detailed particulars of net receipts are not available but the hon. Member will be aware that for the purposes of the recent arbitration as to the amount of compensation to be paid in the event of the statutory unification of coal royalties, the average net annual income during the seven years 1928–34 was agreed by the two sides at £4,430,000.

EMPIRE DEFENCE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the amount per head of the population paid towards the Defence Services of the Empire, both local and Imperial, by residents in each Dominion as compared with the amount paid by residents in Great Britain?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Marquess of Hartington): I would refer the hon. Member to the Armaments Year Book of the League of Nations, which contains particulars of defence expenditure and population for the United Kingdom and each of the Dominions.

Mr. Mander: Will these figures be brought to the attention of the Dominions at the Imperial Conference?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for War how many competitors there have been, at each Army entrance examination during the last three years, for entrance only to either or both of the Royal Military Colleges, and not to the Navy or Royal Air Force College; and how many of these have in each case been granted cadetships?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Number of candidates at Army entrance examinations for Royal Military Academy and Royal Military College only.


—
Number of candidates.
Number successful.


1934.




June examination
285
241


November examination
263
222


1935.




June examination
253
228


November examination
247
219


1936.




June examination
258
229


November examination
243
223

MESSING FEE.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for War what limits, if any, are imposed upon the daily messing fee levied upon officers by an officers' mess; and what is the average amount of this fee in the various messes?

Sir V. Warrender: No specific limits are imposed with regard to the daily messing fee levied on members of officers' messes, but such fees are fixed by the members of the mess, subject to the approval of the commanding officer, and are reviewable by inspecting officers. As a general rule the average fees do not exceed 3s., or 5s. in the case of the Household Troops in the London district, exclusive of rations or ration allowance.

GUARDSMAN'S DEATH, PIRBRIGHT.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the House any information in connection with the death of Guardsman Alexander

Montgomery at Pirbright rifle ranges on 13th April?

Sir V. Warrender: The circumstances in which Guardsman Montgomery met his death are still the subject of investigation, and at the moment I cannot do more than take this opportunity of expressing regret at this unfortunate incident. My right hon. Friend will, however, communicate with the hon. Member as soon as inquiries are completed.

REVIEW, HYDE PARK.

Mr. Smedley Crooke: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements, if any, he has made with the railway companies for cheap transit to London for Sunday, 27th June, on the occasion of His Majesty's review of ex-service men in Hyde Park?

Sir V. Warrender: The question of affording cheap travelling facilities to those attending the review is at present under consideration with the railway companies.

SURPLUS HORSES (SALE).

Mr. G. Nicholson (for Captain Heilgers): asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the sale of 25 surplus Army horses to be held at Reading on Saturday, 1st May; and, if so, will he place a reserve upon them of an amount sufficient to ensure that they will not be purchased for export?

Sir V. Warrender: The reserve price governing sales of surplus Army horses has recently been raised with the object of making it unprofitable to purchase them for export purposes.

Mr. Nicholson: Can the hon. Member say to what level it has been raised?

Sir V. Warrender: I would rather not say now.

Mr. Nicholson: Can the Minister assure the House that it is at a sufficient level to satisfy the farmers?

Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir.

DANZIG.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Nazi senate of Danzig has decided to introduce into the Free State


the racial legislation that is in force in Germany; and whether he will state what action the Committee of Three of the League of Nations Council propose to take in the matter?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): No, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Will the Noble Lord consider making inquiries into this very important development?

Viscount Cranborne: No, Sir; under the procedure of the League it is for the High Commissioner to make his own report if he thinks fit.

Mr. Mander: Am I to understand that no information has been supplied on this point up to date?

Viscount Cranborne: No; not to my knowledge.

Sir Ronald Ross: Which Free State does the hon. Member mean?

Miss Wilkinson: Seeing that the Foreign Office never took any action on any information which it received from the previous High Commissioner, can it now contemplate taking action on any report by the present High Commissioner?

Viscount Cranborne: I think the hon. Lady does not quite understand the procedure.

Miss Wilkinson: Do I not?

Viscount Cranborne: It is not for the Foreign Office to take action; it is for the Council to take action.

Miss Wilkinson: Is it not the job of the Foreign Office occasionally to be supplied with information about something that is going on in the world somewhere?

FOREIGN BOXERS (PERMITS).

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Labour what number of foreign boxers he has recommended the Home Office to enter this country in the last five years; and what organisations or societies are consulted before permits are granted?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that I am unable to give separate figures to show the number of foreign boxers given permission to engage in contests in this country

during the years in question, but the figures for boxers and wrestlers together were as follow:


1932
170


1933
167


1934
205


1935
212


1936
206


As to the second part of the question, applications for permits are submitted to my Department through the British Boxing Board of Control, which is, I understand, the governing body of the sport.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as things are going, South Wales will welcome any foreign boxers in this country?

Mr. Groves: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider receiving a deputation from the National Union of Boxers? Can he say whether he has refused to receive a deputation from this body, and if so, why?

Mr. Brown: Representations have been made on many occasions by this union, but they have always been informed that it is better to deal with one joint body representing all the interests. As the hon. Member knows, the board is a body which has 25 stewards, and many of them represent the boxers.

Mr. Groves: As they represent the boxers, would it not be a joint body if they and the board came together?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member must bear in mind that the Board of Control consists of the president, two vice-presidents, and not more than 25 stewards. A number of the stewards are appointed by the local council on which the boxers are directly represented.

BELGIUM.

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German Government has made any communication to His Majesty's Government as to the possibility of a unilateral declaration on the part of Germany, assuring Belgium of support for her independence and integrity?

Viscount Cranborne: No, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take in the event of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being suspended, and what will be the business of the House next week?

The Prime Minister: We are suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule in the hope that we may be able to complete the Committee stage of the Ministers of the Crown Bill. We do not propose to ask the House to sit late. The Bill has taken rather longer than, we expected. The business for next week will be:
Monday and Tuesday: —Livestock Industry Bill, Report and Third Reading.
Wednesday:—The business will be announced later.
Thursday: —As already announced, the House will meet at 11 o'clock in the morning, and Questions will be taken until 12 o'clock. Afterwards we shall take the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions (Voluntary Contributors) Bill, Report and Third Reading, followed by the Motion for the Adjournment of the House until Monday, 24th May. It is anticipated that the Motion for the Adjournment will be made not later than 3 o'clock, and Mr. Speaker will be empowered to adjourn the House at 7 o'clock.

Mr. Buchanan: Last week when the Prime Minister announced business he stated that the business for yesterday would be the Livestock Industry Bill and that the business for to-day would be the Bill relating to the salaries of Ministers. Subsequently, that business was altered, and the Bill dealing with Ministers' salaries was taken yesterday and the Livestock Industry Bill was fixed for to-day. Last night, about midnight, when we were in Committee, the Government announced that they were proposing to take the Ministers of the Crown Bill to-day. It has been an age-long custom in this House for business to be announced to suit the convenience of all concerned, and for any change of business to be announced in the House. I

want to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you or the House have any protection against the programme of business being altered at 12 midnight without any reason being given as to its urgency. Is it not within your province to see that business is announced in a proper way to suit the convenience of Members of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks me a question in regard to business. I am sure he must realise that I have no power in regard to the arrangement of business. It has nothing to do with me. It is entirely a matter for the Government. As regards the way that business is taken, I think the hon. Member will find that it is as a rule arranged through the usual channels.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, but is it not a fact, generally speaking, that when any change of business has to be announced it is announced in the House at a proper time and in a way which enables the alteration to be discussed, and not announced at midnight? Have you no powers to stop this almost indecent haste on the part of Ministers to rush this Bill through the House willy-nilly?

Mr. Speaker: That question is entirely out of my hands, and I have no power to deal with it.

Mr. Leach: Has the Prime Minister any willingness to help forward the Marriage Bill which is so urgently requested by a large majority of this House?

The Prime Minister: I have had no notice of that question, and certainly I am not in a position to-day to make any reply.

Mr. Logan: Has the Prime Minister any means of providing that that Bill is not further iscussed?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 119.

Division No. 173.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Assheton, R.
Barrie, Sir C. C.


Albery, Sir Irving
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Beit, Sir A. L.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Balniel, Lord
Bennett, Sir E. N.


Apsley, Lord
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Birchall, Sir J. D.




Boulton, W. W.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Brass, Sir W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bull, B. B.
Harbord, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Harvey, Sir G.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Rowlands, G.


Butler, R. A.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Salt, E. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Channon, H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Savery, Sir Servington


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D,


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Latham, Sir P.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Leckie, J. A.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Cranborne, Viscount
Leigh, Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lewis, O.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crooke, J. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Storey, S.


croom-Johnson, R. P.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Crossley, A. C.
Lloyd, G. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cruddas, Col. B.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Culverwell, C. T.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Davison, Sir W. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)



De la Bère, R.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Sutcliffe, H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Denville, Alfred
McKie, J. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Magnay, T.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Doland, G. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Donner, P. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Touche, G. C.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Train, Sir J.


Drewe, C.
Markham, S. F.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wakefield, W. W.


Duggan, H. J.
Moreing, A. C.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Dunglass, Lord
Morgan, R. H.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Elliston, Capt. G. S
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Warrender, Sir V.


Elmley, Viscount
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Watt, G. S. H.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wells, S. R.


Findlay, Sir E.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Patrick, C. M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Goldie, N. B.
Petherick, M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Pilkington, R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Porritt, R. W.



Granville E. L.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Radford, E. A.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Grimston, R. V.
Ramsbotham, H.





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Cassells, T.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Charleton, H. C.
Gallacher, W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Chater, D.
Gardner, B. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cluse, W. S.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Adamson, W. M.
Cove, W. G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Daggar, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Ammon, C. G.
Dalton, H.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Banfield, J. W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Barr, J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Batey, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Bellenger, F. J.
Day, H.
Grenfell, D. R.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Ede, J. C.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Buchanan, G.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Burke, W. A.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)







Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Hardie, G. D.
Mander, G. la M.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Mathers, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Maxton, J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, C.


Hollins, A.
Muff, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Hopkin, D.
Naylor, T. E.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Paling, W.
Thorne, W.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parker, J.
Thurtle, E.


Kelly, W. T.
Parkinson, J, A.
Tinker, J. J.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Kirby, B. V.
Potts, J.
Walker, J.


Lathan, G.
Pritt, D. N.
Watkins, F. C.


Leach, W.
Ridley, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Leonard, W.
Ritson, J.
White, H. Graham


Leslie, J. R.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Logan, D. G.
Rowson, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Lunn, W.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sanders, W. S.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


McGhee, H. G.
Sexton. T. M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


McGovern, J.
Shinwell, E.



MacLaren, A.
Short, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Maclean, N.
Simpson, F. B.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Hastings Pier [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Dartford Tunnel Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:— That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

SUMMARY PROCEDURE (MATRIMONIAL AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL (changed to "SUMMARY PROCEDURE (DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS) BILL").

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

PHYSICAL TRAINING AND RECREATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Report from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, in respect of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1937 (REVISED ESTIMATE).

Revised Estimate presented,—of the sum required in the year ending 31st March, 1938, for Public Education, Scotland [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

BILLS REPORTED.

BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

DUNSTABLE GAS AND WATER BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MANSFIELD DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

FOLKESTONE PIER AND LIFT BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

BURGESS HILL WATER BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments (with Report on the Bill), from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills.

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Earsdon Joint Hospital District) Bill, with Amendments.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EARSDON JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Public Records (Scotland) Bill [Lords]): Mr. James Stuart; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Guy.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 28th April.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Number of persons to whom salaries may be paid under Act as holders of certain offices.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Oswald Lewis: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the second Amendment on the Order Paper in my name—in page 3, line 4, to leave out "of the War Office"—is out of order, or whether you have not selected it? It you have not selected it, may I ask the reasons for your decision, on the ground that the Amendment raises a specific point as to whether there should be one or two Under-Secretaries to the War Office, and that that point is not specifically raised in any other Amendment?

The Chairman: I confess that at the moment I am not quite clear about it as I have not yesterday's papers at hand. I understood that the Amendment was consequential on something else that we had debated on a previous Clause. Since looking at the matter I find that the subject was debated on another Amendment last night, and as a result it has not been selected to-day.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: This is a Clause of very considerable importance and it would hardly be in keeping with the dignity, either of the House of Commons or of those personages who are mentioned in the Clause, if the Clause were allowed to go by without any notice. The Clause refers to a number of persons whose salaries will be raised as holders of certain offices. It enumerates the number of persons at the Treasury and at the Board of Trade. In the course of the last few years we have had a considerable accession to the number of Ministers and we are under this Clause dealing with the position of those Ministers. There is the Secretary for Mines. No one would dispute that he is a very important person, performing a work of immense value, but

I am not so sure of some of the other Ministers mentioned here.
I would draw attention Sub-section 2 (c), which refers to the Foreign Office, the War Office and the Admiralty, and two Under-Secretaries. Some of us had hoped that when we got a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence in addition to an Air Ministry, both of which have taken some of the work which in the old days was done either by the War Office or the Admiralty, and that as there were now four offices dealing with Defence instead of two, with a great expansion of cost, there would be some reduction in the numbers of junior Ministers who are serving in the War Office and the Admiralty. It should not have been beyond the wit of man to have done something to save the taxpayer. It may be said that £1,000 here or there is not a matter of very great importance in these days, but it would be showing a spirit of good will on behalf of the Government, at a time when they are placing additional burdens on the taxpayer, if they could see their way to reduce by one or two the number of these minor offices. I shall not go back to the days of 10 or 15 years ago, when there was a fairly strong feeling in the House that a number of these offices might go, sometimes one and sometimes the other. I am not going to indicate which particular offices might go. We always know that one Member may feel a particular interest in a particular Department and another Member an interest in another Department. I would rather that the Government on this occasion had taken the opportunity to reorganise some of these offices and to readjust them as Departments.
As far as Sub-section (3) is concerned, we there have mentioned a most excellent body of individuals, numbering five. After the brilliant speech of the leader of the Socialist party who sits below the Gangway, I shall not attempt to add anything to his much more attractive remarks. I am sure that he, at any rate, would get up and go into a full defence of the Junior Lords of the Treasury. Obviously it was one of the offices in which his ambition was thwarted in 1929. But I will leave that subject alone. I do regret that in bringing forward a Clause of this kind the Government took no opportunity whatever of reducing the rather large number of junior Ministers and others mentioned in the Clause.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I wish to draw attention to Sub-section (1), which states:
The number of persons holding office as Secretaries of State to whom salaries may be paid under this Act shall not exceed eight.
When the Government decided to introduce this Bill they might have considered themselves under some obligations to see whether it was not possible to decrease the number of offices. With regard to the Secretaries of State, there was the obvious case that they could have made a saving of £5,000 a year by once again combining the Colonies and the Dominions.

The Chairman: I have listened to the hon. Member, but I do not think that this subject has anything to do with the Clause.

Mr. Stephen: I am suggesting that there might be seven instead of eight Secretaries of State.

The Chairman: Where does the Clause deal with Secretaries of State?

Mr. Stephen: Sub-section (1) contains these words:
The number of persons holding office as Secretaries of State to whom salaries may be paid under this Act shall not exceed eight.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is quite right.

Mr. Stephen: I was about to point out that the separation of the Dominions and Colonial offices occurred because of the need of the Government to have two people in the Cabinet and not because of the amount of work to be done. There have been very many occasions when one individual has carried out the work of both the Colonies and the Dominions. It is absolutely shameful that party exigencies should be responsible for the separation of these offices. I am sure that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies could quite easily take over the work of the Dominions Office. I was quite at a loss to understand, when the General Election provided the Prime Minister with an opportunity of getting rid of the burden of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, that he did not seize the opportunity, and that instead there had to take place all the manoeuvres in order to get the Secretary of State for the Dominions back into this House. With

regard to the Dominions Office there is a new position in reference to the Irish Free State. We have also now got the Statute of Westminster, as a result of which the office of Secretary of State for the Dominions becomes practically unnecessary. A very junior Minister could do all that is necessary, with a second division clerk of the Civil Service. The Dominions now are in a similar position to this country and there is no oversight of them from Whitehall. It is going a little too far in the present state of the country, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has alarmed the City to the extent that he has done, that in order to give the appearance of the Government being a National Government we should be compelled to include as a Secretary of State the present individual who represents no body of Labour in this country.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I wish to raise a small point of drafting. I did not notice it in time to put an Amendment on the Paper. Sub-section 2 (c) reads:
The number of Parliamentary Under-Secretaries to the Departments of State to whom salaries may be paid under this Act shall:
'In the case of the Foreign Office, of the War Office and of the Admiralty, not exceed two.'
Should it not be "two each"? It reads as if there were to be two in all the three Departments.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry that the Government propose in Clause 2 to perpetuate the system whereby we have three separate Members of the Government representing the War Office in Parliament. I have long thought that the Fighting Services as a whole are over-represented in the Government, and the worst case is that of the Army. Obviously there are advantages in any Department having two representatives in the Government, so that if the senior representative be in one House the other can be in the other House. It needs arguments of some weight and substance to justify the addition of a third Minister in any Department. We have, for reasons into which it would not be proper to go now, made it our policy for many years to maintain a very small Army, and I cannot see how there can be sufficient work in the War Office to justify—

Whereupon the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Education (Deaf Children) Act, 1937.
2. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1937.
3. Rothesay Water Order Confirmation Act, 1937.
4. Edinburgh Royal Maternity and Simpson Memorial Hospital Order Confirmation Act, 1937.
5. Kingston - upon - Hull Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1937.
6. Margate, Broadstairs and District Electricity Act, 1937.
7. Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Act, 1937.
8 Brighton, Hove and Worthing Gas Act, 1937.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I was remarking that while there might be much to be said for having two representatives of the War Office in Parliament, there was no justification for having a third, and I would put this specific question to the Minister who is to reply to the Debate on this Clause. If the Government take the view that an Army of our size requires three Ministers to represent it in Parliament, how many Ministers would they think necessary if we had an Army of the size of the German Army? I would be satisfied with a reply in round figures to the nearest hundred. The question of the over-representation of Departments is important to the House of Commons from two aspects. If an unnecessary Minister is appointed there is, obviously, a waste

of public money; but there is another objection which, though not quite so obvious, is, in my view, equally important. Additional Ministers who are not really required extend unnecessarily the patronage of the Crown in this House. It is most undesirable that the power and influence of the executive in this House should be extended by the appointment of unnecessary Ministers. It is a bad thing for Parliamentary institutions if that be allowed. I am sorry that it has not proved possible to raise this point directly by a separate Amendment, but there is still time for the Government to reconsider the matter before Report stage if they think fit to do so, and I would urge that course upon them.

4.34 p.m.

Captain Arthur Evans: The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) who desires to persuade the Government to reduce the representation of the War Office in this House seems to have forgotten that we are engaged on a very serious programme of rearmament and that the Regular Army and the Territorial Army are not only being remodelled but, in fact, mechanised.

The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): Owing to the interruption of our proceedings I did not hear all the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). I am not sure that I ought not to have stopped the hon. Member for Colchester. This matter was debated, and was the subject of a Division late last night, or in the early hours of this morning.

Captain Evans: But am I not right in assuming that the Question before us is whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill, and that Clause relates to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and that was the point with which I was dealing.

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member must remember that there is another rule, which is that if a particular point is decided in Committee, we cannot debate it again on the Committee stage, and this point was debated and decided last night.

4.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): I would ask the Committee to let me occupy their attention for a few minutes in the hope


that we may shorten this discussion, because there may be a little misapprehension existing in some quarters. The real effect of Clause 2 is to limit, and not to extend, the number of persons who can be appointed Secretaries of State or Under-Secretaries. One or two of the speeches have indicated that hon. Members have thought we were doing something to extend the opportunities, but really the exact opposite is the case. The Office of Secretary of State is an old office without any authority from Parliament at all. The Prerogative could create any number of Secretaries of State, and this Clause provides that the number of persons holding office as Secretaries of State shall not be more than eight, and is, therefore, a limiting and not an extending provision. If we were to count the number of Secretaries of State at the moment it would be found that it is nine and not eight, one of them being the Secretary of State for Burma, but the offices of Secretary of State for Burma and Secretary of State for India are held by the same person. It would seem to me, following the spirit of what my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) was expressing, that the number of persons holding office as Secretaries of State should be limited to eight, and that is a definite limitation and not an extension. The same thing is true with regard to Under-Secretaries. It is quite competent to create Under-Secretaries by the dozen, and it is really a limitation and not an extension of existing powers at which this Clause aims. If the Committee have that in mind I think it may assist them in understanding the purpose of the Clause, which is not, I think, really a very controversial one.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should like to know whether this Clause alters the constitutional position of a Secretary of State in any other way, because I have been studying the document which the Minister of Health introduced to our notice yesterday when he was urging the Chief Whip to find a few docile supporters who could be certain to go into the Lobby in support of the Government. The Minister of Health does not appear to have extended his reading of the document to the evidence, but I have read the whole document, including the evidence, to make sure that the findings were justified

by the statements made. Lord Durham, then Lord Privy Seal, was being questioned with regard to his office, and he replied:
The hon. Member very well knows that the Secretaries of State are considered only as one, in point of fact, and each individual can perform the duties of all.
I understand that until the introduction of this Bill that was still the constitutional position—that while for convenience we call the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Secretary of State for Home Affairs that, as a matter of fact, he could act in any other of the capacities of a Secretary of State. I find that at the time of the sitting of the Select Committee in 1830 there was some difference between the Home Office and the Foreign Office, and that when Lord Durham endeavoured to get some information out of the Home Office the officers pleaded their oaths and refused to give it to him. He said:
I was met upon commencing this investigation by a refusal on the part of the clerks, who stated that they were by their oaths, unless released by the Secretary of State, prohibited from giving any information whatever, and thus the matter rests at present.
The point then was whether they were able to abolish another office, called the Keeper of the Signet. Is there anything in this Bill which alters the constitutional position that a Secretary of State is not really assigned by the Constitution to any particular office, though for convenience he does, in fact, act in one office, and is there any other way, other than the limitation of the numbers, in which this Clause will operate upon this very ancient office? It is usual to refer to these officers in official documents not as Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary, but as "One of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State." Is there any alteration as regards that?

4.41 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: The answer is "No"; there is no alteration. The hon. Member is quite right. The position of Secretary of State is, in the eye of the law, a single undivided position. That is the reason why Statutes are drawn with a phrase like "A principal Secretary of State." I think I have mentioned it before in this House, and I hope it will be the last observation that I need make about it, but when I held office as Home Secretary early in the War, and Lord Kitchener, the Secretary of State for War, started his


fatal journey to Russia, I had sent over to me from the War Office a number of papers which in the ordinary course Lord Kitchener would have signed, and I continued signing them as a Secretary of State.

CLAUSE 3.—(Additional salaries to Cabinet Ministers who hold offices at salaries less than five thousand a year.)

4.43 p.m.

Colonel Gretton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, to leave out "such," and to insert "one thousand pounds or such less."
This Amendment ought to be read in conjunction with the one following in the name of myself and the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams)—in page 3, line 17, after "to," to insert "not more than." It will be recalled that in the proceedings yesterday a number of salaries were fixed. They were the salaries for the offices which are set out in Part I of the First Schedule—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretaries of State—now eight—the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Agriculture, the President of the Board of Education, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Transport and the new Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. All those Ministers will now be paid a salary of £5,000 a year whether they are members of the Cabinet or not. Clause 3 proposes that an additional salary shall be paid to any other Ministers if they are promoted to a seat in the Cabinet during the time they hold that position. If any Minister is promoted to the Cabinet he is to receive a salary of £5,000 per annum. The effect of this Amendment is that any of the junior Ministers who, under Clause I, are to be paid less than £5,000 a year, should receive on promotion to Cabinet rank an increase of £1,000 in salary. It is not very easy to make out a case why a Minister who is doing work assessed at £3,000 a year should be immediately advanced to receive a salary of £5,000 by the mere fact that he joins the Cabinet. His administrative work may remain the same, and it is admittedly less onerous and valuable administrative

work, as assessed by this Bill, than the administrative work done by the great officers of State whose names and offices are recited in the First Schedule to the Bill.
I would point out that as the proposal stands in this Clause 3 those great officers of State, many of whom have most onerous administrative duties to perform, get no increase of salary owing to the fact that they are members of the Cabinet. One cannot very well visualise a Cabinet which would not contain the principal Secretaries of State, but I would call to the recollection of this Committee that we had a huge Cabinet during the period of the Great War and that there was then an inner Cabinet, consisting of five members, who in fact made all the major decisions. We are getting a Cabinet now on a scale of numbers which is very closely approximating to that huge Cabinet which was in office during the War and which the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), described on one occasion as the Sanhedrin. What I am trying to draw the attention of the Committee to is that this proposal in Clause 3 is offering to the junior Ministers, or, as they are called in the report of the 1922 Committee, Ministers of second and third grades, an increase in salary out of proportion to the additional work which presumably they will be required to do as Ministers having seats in the Cabinet.
The sum of money at stake is not very large. The whole amount is only about £6,000, and it is not so much a matter of saving as a matter of principle. In the evidence given before the Committee of 1930 which considered Ministers' salaries, it was stated that it would be a convenience for the Prime Minister of the day to be able, so to speak, to shuffle his Ministers from one office to another without financial loss to those Ministers. That is the main argument, I believe, for having all Cabinet Ministers on the same range, namely, £5,000 a year, but that is not a very convincing argument, and, so far as I can see in the evidence, there is no convincing statement made for that argument. There is merely a general, round phrase, used in various forms, that a Cabinet Minister receives £5,000 a year because of the honour and dignity of the office which he holds.
I know that the Committee does not desire to prolong these proceedings unduly, or I might call attention to evidence given before the Committee of 1930 which emphasises the different grades of the work required from the Ministers of the Crown who are in the different Schedules to this Bill. In one piece of evidence there was a very eminent witness who gave a somewhat disparaging description of the work done by the Postmaster-General. His duties were described by that witness as being very largely mechanical and less onerous than those of many other Ministers of the Crown. At any rate, that is the kind of evidence that was offered. The present Minister of Health introduced energy and new ideas into the Post Office, but he got no increase of salary as a result. He was doing his duty and was well satisfied to do it well.
I suggest that no sufficient case has been made out, when you are promoting a second or third grade Minister to the Cabinet, for automatically giving him an increase of £2,000 or 3,000 per annum through the mere fact that he is promoted to a higher rank. The second Amendment which is put down to this Clause in my name is consequential and is to prevent any Minister of the Crown under some future arrangement receiving more than £5,000 owing to the fact that he is a member of the Cabinet.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I can quite understand the attitude of my right hon. and gallant Friend towards this Bill when he seeks to reduce on every possible occasion the amount of salaries proposed. I appreciate the point that in these times economy is an object at which we must all try to aim. At the same time, I think this Amendment is an unfortunate one. It is really wrecking one of the best parts of the Bill. It seems to me that the object of this Clause is an equalization of salary. Yesterday we were discussing whether we should equalize up or down; to-day we are discussing another point, but it seems to me that most hon. Members are agreed that the object to be attained is that there must be equalization. The reason for it is quite clear: it is in order to make Cabinet alterations or Cabinet-making easier for the Prime Minister of the day, and that obviously applies to every party, whichever one may happen to be in power. In

addition to that, when one of these less highly paid Ministers is promoted to the Cabinet, he has great additional responsibility and additional work as well, and therefore it seems to me that he should rank both in salary and status with the rest of his Cabinet colleagues. For those reasons I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment, and I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will not pursue it.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: If the case put forward by my right hon. and gallant Friend were admitted, should we not then revert to the position of a good many years ago when the Scottish Secretary was brought into the Cabinet from an outside position at a smaller salary than his colleagues and was required to sit alongside those colleagues, sharing their responsibilities equally with them and yet all the time receiving a material remuneration very considerably lower than they received? There was in Scotland a feeling of loss of dignity on that account. Psychology enters into this matter, and one of the features of this Bill which is most welcome to Scotland is that our representative in the Cabinet is granted as on a level with other members of the Cabinet. I am bound, therefore, to oppose the Amendment, for the reason that I regard it as essential that every member of the Cabinet, sharing as he does the supreme responsibility for the government of this country, should be paid equally, in order psychologically that he may feel equal to his friends around the table.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I should like to assure the last speaker that when we were putting down this Amendment we took into the fullest and most careful consideration the position of Scotland, and if he will read the Bill, he will see that all the Secretaries of State are included in the £5,000 salary scale, so that unless the hon. Gentleman or some other person moves the Secretary of State for Scotland out, his point is entirely covered.

Mr. Stewart: I think the hon. Member has not got my point. It is possible that on a future occasion the same view which we in Scotland held might be held by those who supported, shall we say, the Postmaster-General when he was elevated


to the Cabinet. It was wrong, in our opinion, that if a man having a lower salary should be elevated to the Cabinet, he should be paid any less than his colleagues. I was giving an example, but I knew that the Scottish Secretary was included in the list of those to be paid salaries of £5,000 a year.

Mr. Williams: I am glad to know that, but at any rate that makes the position guile clear. May I go on to one other point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, the question of equality between Cabinet Ministers? Now equality in theory is a most excellent institution, but equality in practice never arises in almost any circumstance. What we want to do is to make the payments somewhere in proportion to the amount of the work. Almost every one of us knows that the Minister of Labour—I am only quoting what has been said several times in the Debate—has a very hard and arduous position. The Lord President of the Council or the Lord Privy Seal as such does not have the same amount of departmental work to do, and, in regard to those positions, we have deliberately put in £1,000 as an addition to their salary. In the whole composition of the Cabinet there must be some Ministers who, although they may be very excellent in themselves, are not Ministers who would run a great Department. I have held for many years that it is right, good, and sound that there should be a certain number of Ministers in the Cabinet who have not heavy departmental work, who can therefore give far more care and advice on various matters.
Let us keep three or four sinecure positions, and if we give them this extra £1,000 a year that would roughly maintain them in a Cabinet position. For example, it is true that if the Minister of Pensions came into the Cabinet, he would come out of the business fairly badly; but if you remember that the Lord President and the Lord Privy Seal are already receiving £3,000, this extra £1,000 will bring them up to £4,000. If you follow the theory of equality too far, and lay it down once and for all that the Cabinet is absolutely equal so far as its work is concerned, in the same way as it is equal in regard to standard, there is no limit to where you can go. We are all equal as Members of Parliament, although some of us are paid very low,

and some very high, but I will not go into that. But there is a limit beyond which we should not go in regard to equality. I see that two Cabinet Ministers are looking at me now, and no one could possibly say that they are equal—they both have charming qualities —if you tried a weighing machine. I hope I have not disturbed them in any way, but there is simply not equality in that direction.

Mr. Pritt: Do you want to pay them by weight?

Mr. Williams: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just interrupted me has a waistline that is any better than my own. I would say, in answer to my right hon. Friend opposite, and in supporting my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, that we have put down the Amendment because we wish fully to recognise the existence and importance of the Cabinet as such, but it is really in the interests of those of us who take a different line and who have tried to help the Government in our own way on this Bill, that the Government should meet the opposition by at least one small concession. If they gave us this concession it would make many of us happier and more willing to help them, and it would affect not only one or two Members who have taken part in this Debate but scores of Conservative Members who are taking no part in the Bill—when you look at the Division lists, you will see that. For that reason, I would ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to see his way, after the very weighty argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment, to meet us on this one occasion and give us some concession.

5.6 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would, of course, be only too glad to bring some happiness to the life of my hon. Friend, but I fear on this occasion that the objections to the proposal outweigh that anxiety on my part. There are two great reasons to be advanced against this proposal, and I doubt whether my right hon. Friend who moved it can claim that there is much support behind it. There is a difference of opinion, referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether a Minister should


receive £4,000 or £5,000 a year. I doubt whether hon. Gentlemen opposite would dissent from the proposition that, apart from the question of amount, there should be equality of payment of members of the Cabinet. That is one of the main principles of this Measure, that when a man gets into the Cabinet he, at any rate, as far as his remuneration is concerned, should be equal to his colleagues there. I think there are many compelling reasons for that. The second reason is that it is obvious that if there is a difference of remuneration, difficulties do arise from time to time when the Prime Minister makes some change among the members of the Cabinet. One cannot avoid coming to a conclusion of that kind, and from the point of view of good, constitutional government the fact that all members of the Cabinet are receiving equal remuneration does help the Prime Minister of the day in any change he may desire to make between one member of the Cabinet and another. It is for those reasons that the proposals in the Bill have been generally accepted by the vast majority of Members of the House, and for those reasons I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press this matter any further.

5.9 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I think the House has accepted the principle that Ministers holding administrative positions should have equal salary. It was suggested that £4,000 should be an adequate salary, but the House decided in favour of £5,000. I agree that that principle has been practically established by our vote, but the two posts of the Lord Privy Seal and the Lord President of the Council are sinecures, since they have been regarded as posts in which ancient Ministers, tired and exhausted by years of public service, should be allowed to remain members of the Cabinet. These two Ministers are not charged with administrative responsibility, and have not got the job of looking after large tasks and working long hours. It seems anomalous that Members of the Cabinet holding these two ancient posts, which have become in course of time sinecures, should be paid the full salary of £5,000 a year. Far from making it easier for the Prime Minister to form a Cabinet, that would make it more difficult, because he would have two gentlemen singled out for full salary who will

have no responsibility and would be doing no work to justify the salary they were receiving. I think that these two posts are essential posts. They are historical, they are traditional, they are ornamental and picturesque, and they find a way out, they make it easier for the services of men who are tired and exhausted by Cabinet responsibilities and administrative posts to be retained. I can think of a whole series of Ministers who have been glad to remain in the Cabinet at a reduced fee. I do not think it is necessary to add the £1,000 a year which the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Dealing with the wider aspect of the case, there is a profound feeling outside the House that at a time like this, of great financial stringency, these two posts should be paid at a lesser salary, and that the House would go out of its way if it increased their salary by £1,000 a year. I can understand the argument of a philosophical Socialist that everybody should be paid equally, but it is a peculiar doctrine to come from the Minister, who prides himself on the ardour of his anti-Socialist doctrine. He is putting forward the theory that, however hard a man's work is, however long his hours, whether the work be light or hard, he should be paid the same salary. That is a rather dangerous theory coming from the right hon. Gentleman who holds the particular views of the Minister of Health.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I am very pleased that the Minister has accepted the point put forward from this side, that the positions in the Cabinet are equal, and therefore should be equally paid. All Members of the Cabinet are equal, and have to accept equal responsibility for Cabinet decisions. It may be that some Members do more work than others, but in the big job of Cabinet responsibility every man must take his share of the responsibility. Accepting that view of equal responsibility, a man is entitled to equal pay. A plea has been put forward by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that certain Members of the Cabinet ought not to have equal pay, but I would ask him if it is not about time to set about reorganising the Cabinet so it shall carry only sufficient men to do the work required? Then, certain positions might be abolished altogether. Rather than cut across the principle of


equal payment, we should exclude persons who are not required anyhow. I entirely agree that certain posts can be done away with.
Having cleared that up, we come back to the principle in the Amendment, and I do not think we on the Socialist benches can support it. Last night we voted for £4,000 against £5,000, and we agreed that that sum should be equal for everybody. We should be departing from that principle now if we supported the Amendment. Much as I agree with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend on the back bench on many occasions, I think that here he is illogical and is not arguing to the best of his ability.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: The Amendment shows that the Bill is not bringing forward proposals for dealing with anomalies, but that the anomalies are to continue, and that the Government are getting the increases for themselves rather than setting up a standard which will correct anomalies and make for the good government of the country. While we accept the principle that Members of the Cabinet, being equal, should be paid the same amount, we do not get the opportunity of voting in that way. We are in the difficulty that we have to support the Amendment in order to protest against the Government's proposals. It is the general practice in this House that sometimes the only way in which we can make our protest is to vote for the reduction of an Estimate in order to emphasise that what we want is a great expansion of expenditure in that respect. By voting in the Lobby for this Amendment we should register our protest that the Government, instead of giving us a reconstruction of the offices and of the Cabinet, have put us into the position that we have to vote thousands of pounds more for individuals who are carried in the Cabinet for ornamental reasons. That is not good enough.
Notice how this matter has proceeded. We have been told that the work of some of the Ministries, notably that of the Ministry of Labour, has developed to such an extent that we must increase the salaries to the Cabinet level of £5,000 a year. If the principle embodied in this Measure is that we are paying each man for the work he is doing, how can we agree to pay £5,000 to a passenger or

an ornament, such as an elder statesman who is being carried in the Cabinet for sentimental reasons? The Minister said he thought that the Committee were in very general agreement with the Government on this matter; I have scarcely seen a Government Measure arouse less enthusiasm among the supporters of the Government than has been aroused by the Bill. Whether hon. Members opposite will support the Government in this further ridiculous position, I do not know, but the Minister of Health does not seem to show his usual acquaintance with hon. Members when he talks about a general agreement with the proposals. It is obvious that there is nothing like agreement or enthusiasm, and that nothing would please hon. Members better than that the Government should throw overboard these pitiful proposals, which cannot be defended because they are not based upon a sound principle ruling throughout the Measure. In view of the national stringency, to give this extra money seems to be disregarding the needs of the situation. I hope the Committee will take the opportunity, by voting for the Amendment, to make the Government understand that they have to bring forward a Measure that will do justice, and that, while embodying the principle of equal pay, will be based upon such a distribution of work in the Cabinet that Ministers will be doing something which is approximately equal in the administrative work of the country.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: An entirely new principle has been introduced of giving equal pay for completely unequal work. The principle of equal pay for equal work is sound. The Minister of Health rather challenged me by asserting that there was not very much support for the principle. In doing so, he has forced my hand to give the Committee an indication of what support there was. Only 175 Members voted for, and there were 123 against, out of over boo Members. That means that the Government could not get their majority, which goes to bear out the statement that I have made that there is a great deal of feeling upon this point and that Members will not vote. I should not have brought that point out had I not been directly challenged upon it by what the right hon. Gentleman said.

5.23 p.m.

Colonel Gretton: It is clear that the Committee will not accept the Amendment and so, in deference to the general feeling, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, line 30, at the end, to add:
Provided that this section shall not apply to more than three such Ministers at any one time.
This Amendment is not without its importance, although it is definitely limited in scope. It does not bring up in any way the question of limiting by Statute the size of the Cabinet. I rather fancy that the Bill will be the first Statute that has taken notice of the fact that there is a Cabinet. Nor do we desire to challenge in general the proposal that the Members of the Cabinet should be paid equally, although the Amendment does make some inroad into that. We do not challenge the amount of the salary paid to Members of the Cabinet in general; that has been disposed of at other times, and we can make no attempt, whatever our feelings may be about it, to deal with that point. The Amendment raises a small question of principle which I suggest the Committee should consider seriously; that is, whether the Government ought to be at liberty to raise the total amount of money paid to individuals out of public funds simply by putting them into the Cabinet in comparatively large numbers.
The figures, as I see them, are these: the Cabinet will normally contain 17 Ministers—I do not think there is any compulsion about this in law, in fact, I am sure there is not—who come under Part I of the First Schedule of the Bill, and the Prime Minister. There will be, that is to say, normally 18 Members of the Cabinet, plus as many more as happen to be put into it. The operation of this Clause, if I understand it, enables the Prime Minister, technically, to add to those 18 persons not less than nine, any one of whom, simply by being added, will proceed to draw from public funds sums of money which may be as much as £3,000 extra. The way I arrive at the figure of nine is that there are four Ministers in Part II, one Minister in Part III, which makes five, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,

which makes six. Then there are the Reelection of Ministers Act Ministers, three without Portfolio. They are not appointed by virtue of the Re-election of Ministers Act, of course, nor do they get their salary from that Act; they get their appointment and salary from elsewhere, but the Act makes it possible for them to sit in the House of Commons and to be appointed to a position when the Government desire to do so.
If by simply putting people into the Cabinet the Government can increase the charge upon public funds, we suggest that there ought to be some limit upon the right to do so, and that the limit ought to be much less than nine persons. The Amendment suggests a limitation to three, but, looking at it now, I think three is perhaps too small a number. If the Government were prepared to consider accepting the Amendment, I should be happy to see some figure such as four or five. I am not arguing whether or not the Cabinet is much too large, which would be out of order, but, with a Cabinet of modern size, of 21 or even 22 persons, the Government should not be in a position to add five, six or seven persons, and to involve the country in an expenditure for each addition of something like £3,000 a year; that is something which the Committee should not sanction. The Government and the Prime Minister, in selecting a Minister for the Cabinet, must be allowed to say: "We have such and such persons for such and such offices, and we want one in the Cabinet who would not usually be there, while we do not necessarily need the services of another." If this Amendment were accepted, the Prime Minister would still be at liberty to put people into the Cabinet if he wanted to, but not at the public expense. I would ask the Committee to agree to this Amendment, so that this method of spending more public money without control is kept within limits.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope the Government will consider the possibility of doing something to limit what must be the tendency- to increase the Cabinet if there is an automatic increase of pay on becoming a Member of the Cabinet. Very few historical generalisations are safe, but I think that this one is quite safe. Throughout the whole of our history there


has continually been a council which was responsible for the day-to-day business of policy and administration. Continually that council has tended to become larger, and, every time that that has happened, the council has ceased to be real. I do not believe that in all our history a council which tended to be much over 20 in number has continued to exist, and I think there is a serious risk that, if there is a tendency for the Cabinet to be much over 20, it will cease to be a reality.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: The Cabinet already consists of 22 Members. Wisdom may not always arise out of a multitude of counsellors, and to go beyond the present number would make the Cabinet more like a mass meeting than a Cabinet if the whole Cabinet met at one time. We think that the number of additional Members who are paid £5,000 a year should be restricted to three, because otherwise the Cabinet may become a very costly institution.

Mr. Petherick: I desire to reinforce the plea put forward by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). As the Bill is at present drafted, there will be the 17 Members of the Cabinet who are mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule, and the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor will make the number 19. As the hon. and learned Member has pointed out, nine more might be added. I look upon this Amendment, limiting to three the number that may be added, as being very sound, and I hope that, if the Minister cannot accept it in its present form, he will at any rate accept the figure of five as a maximum.

5.32 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I would like to associate myself and my hon. Friends on these benches with the plea that has been made from different parts of the Committee to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. Indeed, I can hardly believe that he will resist it. We had a long discussion yesterday on the standard salary of a Cabinet Minister, and there was some difference of opinion between the Home Secretary and myself as to the meaning of the 192o Committee's report on that point. At any

rate, however, the Home Secretary based himself in that case almost entirely on the 1920 Committee's report, and this Amendment is strictly in accordance with the recommendations of that committee. They put in the first category of Cabinet Ministers 12, including the Chief Secretary for Ireland, an office which has since disappeared, leaving II. In the second category they placed four who would receive the higher salary if they were Members of the Cabinet, making a total of 15. They then referred to the sinecure offices, mentioning the First Lord of the Treasury, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord President of the Council, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Ministers without Portfolio, and they recommended that the salaries to be paid to these should be limited to £10,000 a year. The offices would remain, but beyond the limit of£10,000 a year their holders would receive no remuneration. In other words, leaving out the Chief Secretary for Ireland, they recommended that not more than 17 Ministers should receive the standard Cabinet salary of £5,000 a year. The Mover of the Amendment approaches the same end by different means. He suggests that not more than three other than those referred to as being in the first class should receive this additional salary. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman who is now in charge of the Bill will see his way to accept what he knows to be approved in every part of the House.

5.36 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: Much as I would like to meet the wishes of many of my hon. Friends, I could not accept this proposal, and in that I hope the Committee, on reflection, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who has moved the Amendment, will agree with me. In the first place, it should be made plain that the Amendment would not in any way restrict the right of the Prime Minister to settle the size of his Cabinet. The alteration which has been suggested would rather lead one to think that it would, but that is not the case at all.

Sir A. Sinclair: It would restrict the number of people who receive the standard salary.

Sir K. Wood: I think it would be most undesirable on constitutional grounds to limit the responsibility of the Prime Minister for the size of his Cabinet, and


nothing of that kind would be achieved by the Amendment. All that it would do would be to put a restriction upon the Prime Minister in regard to the number of second Ministers whose salaries would be made up to £5,000, and the Mover of the Amendment himself has indicated that the number suggested in it is not altogether satisfactory to him. The Amendment would not achieve the object of those who have put it forward, namely, to keep the size of the Cabinet within certain limitations, but it would offend against the principle, which we have just passed, of equality of salary among Members of the Cabinet, and I suggest that it is best to maintain that principle of equality among Members of the Cabinet, trusting to the Prime Minister of the day, whoever he may be, to see that the number of Members in the Cabinet is reasonable. I do not think there can be any suggestion that any Prime Minister would use this power to give some position to a Member of the House who ought really not to receive it. I think that the Prime Minister should be left unfettered by any provision of this sort, and that we should maintain the principle, which we have already adopted, of equality of remuneration among the Cabinet, relying, as I think it is proper to do, upon the Prime Minister of the day to guard against any of the evils which hon. Members appear to fear.

5.40 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: On this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has not spoken with his usual conviction. I can see that he is not in a position to accept the Amendment, but his argument did not meet the point which was put by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pick-thorn), and which, after all, represents the general public opinion. If the Cabinet is really to carry out its traditional work of deciding policy, it should not be a mass meeting, but should be limited in numbers. It is obvious that if, having accepted the principle of a standard rate for every Cabinet post, we limit the number of those who are to be entitled to the salary of £5,000, it would at any rate be a very broad hint to a Prime Minister that it is the desire of the House of Commons that the size of the Cabinet should be limited—

The Chairman: I am afraid that this is becoming a very broad hint to me. The hon. Member is now discussing points which could not properly be discussed on this Clause or on this Bill.

Sir P. Harris: The Amendment would limit the number of persons entitled to the extra salary over and above the rate fixed for their posts.

The Chairman: I cannot allow the Debate to develop into a Debate on something quite different from that, namely, the question of the limitation of the number of the Cabinet. I know that references to that question cannot be entirely avoided, but they must be limited references.

Sir P. Harris: I was really backing up the argument of the hon. Member for Cambridge University that, if we limited the number of Ministers who are to be entitled to this addition to their ordinary salary, it would have a very good effect in limiting the size of the Cabinet.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I think the Minister took the only line that it was possible for him to take in refusing to accept the Amendment, in view of the decision which has been taken with regard to equality of pay in the Cabinet. At the same time, however, I think he has also made plain the misgivings that exist in the minds of Members with regard to what this Measure may do. I am not going to discuss the question of the big Cabinet or the smaller Cabinet, but I do not know that one would be willing to accept the dictum of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that everyone now accepts the idea that a small Cabinet is more effective than a bigger Cabinet. However, Sir Dennis, in view of your Ruling, I cannot discuss the pros and cons of the small Cabinet as against the big.
One purpose of the Amendment might be to prevent the business which goes on when difficulties arise in a party and when people are taken into the Cabinet, although there is no work for them, in order to try to quieten some faction that has grown up in the party. That has happened so often in the present Government that I can well understand Members of the Opposition being anxious to find some machinery that will stop this business. It has happened already, and I


can see it happening oftener in the future, when, the principle of equality in the Cabinet having been laid down on a financial basis, the Prime Minister of the day, faced with the fact that he himself is becoming more and more ineffective, and that more and more Richmonds are coming into the field for his post, might try to buy them off by taking them into the Cabinet and giving them £5,000 a year. The Minister of Health laughs at that, but recent history shows that it is not in the least far-fetched. The predecessor of the present Prime Minister, when history is written, may be shown to have been actuated in such a way. I can see that the Government will not accept the Amendment because of the way in which it has decided to act in connection with the whole Measure. At the same time I think the Opposition is thoroughly justified in pressing this limitation upon them because, if the Cabinet were to be increased to 30 to avoid fissures in the National Government in the future, perhaps some of them would not think it was worth while if they were coming in without getting a salary. This limitation might be useful in avoiding the way in which government seems to be developing to-day. I shall certainly support the Amendment.

5.46 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I strongly support the Amendment on the grounds which have been put forward by the proposer and by my colleague in the representation of Cambridge University. We, at any rate, have some regard to the amount of money that is going to be spent. It is absurd to think you can add any number of people, giving them salaries of £5,000 a year. I object very strongly. I trust the Amendment will be carried to a Division.

5.47 p.m.

Major Hills: I intend to vote for the Amendment. I was very much impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). It is not entirely money, though money is important, but this will be an indirect limitation at least on the membership of Cabinets. Would it not be rather a useful provision for Prime Ministers in the future? All Prime Ministers are pressed, in a way that only they know, by supporters to give them this or that post, and I believe future Prime Ministers

would bless the Mover of the Amendment if it were carried. I feel very strongly that we ought to put some check, even though not a very strong one, on the excessive increase in Cabinets which we have seen in recent years, and I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider the Amendment.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Ede: A very plain indication has been given by a former Member of the Government that some people in the Cabinet do not earn anything at all. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who was brought into the Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio, resigned because he did not think it was right that the State should be burdened with the cost of his salary, as he had nothing to do in his office. He had been described as the Minister of Thought, and one realises, after the exhibition that we have had from the right hon. Gentleman to-day, that such a Ministry as that could not possibly be one worth having in a Cabinet of which he was a member. This will be a very strong indication to future Prime Ministers when they are being pressed to admit people into the Cabinet that the House of Commons has given in an indirect way an indication of the appropriate size of this supreme council of the Empire. I hope hon. Members opposite who have expressed their intention of supporting the Amendment will carry it out. I am sure it is not a threat to the Government but only a promise to us. I hope that the Government may even now see their way to accept the Amendment, which obviously carries with it the good will of nearly every independent Member in the Committee.

Captain Sir William Brass: I should like to appeal to my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter. I have voted all the time in favour of the Government, but I feel very strongly on this matter and, if it goes to a Division, I shall supporth the Amendment.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Appeals have been made from every part of the Committee to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. I hope he will do nothing of the kind. The Committee has to make up its mind what exactly it wants in this Amendment. If you desire


to limit the size of the Cabinet, the Amendment does not attain that object at all. If, on the other hand, it is the desire to limit expenditure, I should have thought this was a very feeble way of expressing that desire. We have been told that this would at least be a broad hint that we did not desire the Cabinet to reach extraordinary numbers—the size of a mass meeting. Surely this is a very absurd way of making a broad hint. If the Committee desires very strongly to suggest that the Cabinet should not exceed a certain number, let it face up to the problem and do it properly and honestly, and let someone at some stage introduce a private Member's Bill. If you were to limit the size of the Cabinet by this Amendment, you would strike at the very root of the constitutional authority of the Prime Minister. The Amendment, in fact, says that we distrust the Prime Minister. I am not prepared to take the view that anyone placed in that high office is unlikely to carry out his duties honourably and properly, and I am not going to associate myself with any Amendment that casts the least reflection on the good judgment of any one of us who may ultimately attain to that high office.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The Amendment has not raised an issue between political parties at all. It is an issue of a purely constitutional character, but of a very high constitutional character, on which certainly the opinion of the House of Commons is the best we can get. I imagine that no one can have heard the Debate without coming to the conclusion that seldom has the opinion of the House ever been so clearly expressed. Even the attitude of the Committee to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman defending the existing conditions shows how clear opinion is. The Minister should not go to a Division without saying something more. It would be only fair to the Committee to accept what is so obviously its almost unanimous wish.

5.59 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: I apologise for not having been here, but I appreciate what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman as to the views that have been expressed in various quarters of the Committee. I think it would be a very undesirable thing to pronounce finally one way or the

other on this matter without a little more consideration. This point is essentially one which should have the most deliberate consideration of the Prime Minister himself. It is only those who have had the responsibility of forming Cabinets who are in a position to express an authoritative view. I, therefore, speak subject to that, but I will tell the Committee quite frankly my general impressions.
The first is that in the course of our history the size of Cabinets has very greatly varied. I think that I am right in saying that when Pitt sat here he had only one Cabinet colleague in the House of Commons, and long after that the number of Cabinet Ministers sitting in the Commons was very small indeed. I recollect giving some figures years ago in a Debate on the subject. The first reflection on that point is that, as circumstances changed, the size of the Cabinet varied. The second thing that occurs to me is this: I would have thought myself that there was a very proper dislike of an increase in the size of Cabinets, if it could possibly be avoided. I believe that to be the general feeling, and that it is right. The Cabinet is an executive. It is true that it has to work, especially in modern times, a great deal through committees, and the Government could not possibly be carried on unless there was a great deal of devolution of that sort, but the general constitutional principle as we all understand it is that there should not be unnecessary multiplication of members of the Cabinet. It would be bad management, and, on other grounds, I do not think that it would be in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. If I imagined the Bill as it stood was really going to operate to encourage, even in the smallest degree, an augmentation or increase in the size of the Cabinet, I should be disposed to disagree with it. I do not think that that is the fact. It is theoretically conceivable, of course, that you might have a Prime Minister who would say, "Let me look at Section 3. Why, bless my soul, I shall be able to make nine more Cabinet Ministers at £5,000 a year, and I will go and do it." Of course, no one would do it.
I would like very much to have an opportunity of having this matter considered between now and the Report stage, because none of us wants to adopt


by a mistake a sort of loose view about this question, but my own view at the moment, assuming that you have a responsible Prime Minister who is really going to discharge his duty with anything like serious care, is that I agree with my hon. Friend below the Gangway; I cannot conceive of a Prime Minister in any party who would say that this Bill gave him a looseness and latitude to deal with the matter. I am trying not to say anything too controversial but to tell the Committee frankly how I feel. I think that it would be rather a serious thing on an Amendment discussed in this way if we were really to adopt what would be a tremendous constitutional change, namely, actually to lay down rules designed to limit the size of the Cabinet. Nothing of that sort has happened hitherto in our history. It may be that by good will we can find some suitable way of meeting the situation, and, if my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, I think that the right course here is to undertake, as I will at once, to consult my colleagues on this matter, which was quite unexpected by me. Before we reach the Report stage, I will communicate with right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I think that that is fair, and I do not want to be controversial, although it is my nature to be so. The right hon. Gentleman comes here and says that someone has found something which has been on the Order Paper for a week, and His Majesty's Government ought to have considered it before. If they have not in fact considered it before, I do not want to take any unfair advantage. I understand what is to happen later. There will be a Report stage.

Sir J. Simon: Yes.

Mr. Pritt: The right hon. Gentleman assures me that the matter will be given serious consideration between now and the Report stage and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Stephen: rose—

The Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that the Amendment cannot be withdrawn if he insists on speaking now.

Mr. Stephen: I recognise that fact, but I want to put a question. The Home

Secretary says that there is to be a Report stage, and I want to know why he says that?

Sir J. Simon: What I meant was that there is an Amendment on the Paper which, as far as I am concerned, we can accept.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I want to ask one or two questions. It says in Sub-section (3):
This Section applies to any Minister of the Crown named in Part II or Part III of the First Schedule.
I should like the Minister to state why the Minister who come under Part III should be paid £5,000 a year if in the Cabinet, and I want him especially to tell us why the Lord President of the Council should be paid £5,000 a year simply because he is in the Cabinet. When we first began to discuss the Bill the reason given for suggesting the payment of £5,000 a year to all members of the Cabinet was not merely that they were members of the Cabinet, but that they represented important offices which had increased to such an extent as to warrant the payment of £5,000 a year. Surely, no Member in this House can argue that merely because a Minister is a member of the Cabinet he should be entitled to £5,000 a year. I understand that the Cabinet meet once a week, and surely no one can argue that because there is a meeting once a week members of the Cabinet should be entitled to £5,000 a year. Sub-section (1) of the Clause says that the £5,000 a year should be paid as long as a Minister is a member of the Cabinet, and I would like to know what salary would be paid if a Minister ceased to be a member of the Cabinet. Would he revert to the original salary that was paid before he entered the Cabinet? The explanatory statement on the front pages of the Bill tells us the total amount of the increased expenditure, but does not state what Ministers will receive increases of salary, nor does it give the present salary. I should like to know how many Ministers are receiving a salary less than £5,000 a year at the present time and what the actual salary amounts to.
I oppose any increase of salary to Ministers simply because they enter the Cabinet. If money is to be given away and the Treasury has too much money, there are people in this country who need money far more than do the Ministers in the Cabinet. It is one of the most disgraceful things I have known in the 15 years I have been in this House that the Cabinet should come forward with such a proposal while people outside are starving, and when the Cabinet themselves are responsible for that starvation and will do nothing for those people. It is a shameful thing on the part of the Cabinet to come forward with such a proposal. They are telling the House and the country that £2,000 a year is not sufficient for a Minister to live upon. If a Minister cannot live on £2,000 a year, he cannot live on £10,000 a year. The Cabinet say that 24s. a week unemployment benefit is too much for members of the working classes, and yet they come here and say that £2,000 a year is not sufficient for a Cabinet Minister. If a Cabinet Minister's wife cannot keep house on £500 a year, she cannot keep house at all. It is disgraceful that the Cabinet should suggest that people cannot live upon £2,000 a year when men and women equally as good as they are have to live as best they can at the present time on 24S. a week.
I shall make my protest as long as I can against proposals to give more and more of the public money to those who have sufficient already, while at the same time the working people of this country are starving. There is need for more public money to be given where the means test is being applied. We have pleaded with the Minister of Health for a long time in this House to bring in a Bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act. We have told him of old men who are receiving only 10s. a week because their wives are not 65 years of age, and cannot, therefore, obtain the pension of 10s. Both are compelled to exist upon 10s. a week. Here is the Minister of Health, who refuses to bring in an amending Bill to do justice to these old folks, piloting this Bill through the House with the object of increasing to £5,000 the salaries of Ministers who are now paid £2,000 a year. Increases of £3,000 a year are being given, and at the same time starving people outside are being deprived of

their rights. We raised objections when the Bill was before the House which gave £35,000 a year extra to the Metropolitan magistrates and the county court judges. We objected to public money being given to them in that way, and to-night I have no hesitation in protesting against these huge increases of salary. It is one of the most disgraceful things that I have ever known in this House. It is most disgraceful that any Government should give these huge increases of salary, in some cases amounting to £3,000 a year, to people who have already sufficient, while at the same time they allow people outside to starve.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I should like to say a few words in regard to Sub-section (2). It was passed practically without any comment on the Second Reading and during the Debates on the Clause. It introduces one of the most important constitutional changes that we have ever had. It refers to the Cabinet for the first time, so far as I know, in any Act of Parliament, as the Home Secretary said in the Second Reading Debate. The Cabinet has hitherto been undefined and technically unknown to the law. The curious thing about this machinery is that the date of the appointment and the date of the termination of the appointment of a Minister who is a member of the Cabinet have to depend not on any invitation from the Prime Minister, or of any acceptance, but upon publication in the "London Gazette." Notification in the "London Gazette" is to be conclusive evidence of the date on which a Minister joins or leaves what is called the Cabinet.
I should like to know a little more about the machinery which controls the "London Gazette," because it is of the utmost importance that we should know that no publication of that sort can possibly find its way into the "London Gazette" unless by the authority of the Prime Minister, in some shape or form. I think it would be better that the actual date of appointment and the determination of the appointment should depend upon a document signed by the Prime Minister, to be published in the "London Gazette," and that publication in the "London Gazette" should be prima facieevidence of the date or termination of such appointment, rather than leave


it that any publication in the "London Gazette" should be conclusive evidence that a particular Minister becomes or ceases to be a member of the Cabinet. This is a matter to which I submit, with great respect, attention ought to be directed a little more closely, so that we may be absolutely satisfied that no unauthorised announcement can be made in the "London Gazette."

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: It is, in a way, a constitutional landmark when, for the first time, we mention the Cabinet in an Act of Parliament. If we want any guide as to what the Cabinet really is, it cannot be found in any Statute. I have looked up certain legal works, including Bagehot's delightful work on the British Constitution, in which he defines the Cabinet as
The greatest committee of the Legislature,
and also as
a small but disorderly board of directors.
When definitions so different are given by so considerable an authority, one does expect that when, in this Bill for the first time, we mention the Cabinet, at least it should be made clear what is meant. We are entitled to assume judicial ignorance and to ask, if a certain Minister of the Crown is a Member of the Cabinet, what is the Cabinet? Then we look at the Definition Clause, but we do not find anything there. We find there a definition of a Junior Lord of the Treasury, who is a comparatively intelligible animal, who has a soul to be saved and a posterior to be kicked, which is more than can be said of the Cabinet. The Cabinet, this mysterious body, is not defined at all. It is a very curious procedure to pass an Act of Parliament which authorises a payment, the qualification for which is to be a Member of a Cabinet which nobody knows anything about and which is not defined anywhere.

Major Hills: The Cabinet surely started as a Committee of the Privy Council. That is its historical origin.

Mr. Griffith: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman tells me that which has been familiar to me for years, but how does that tell me which Privy Councillor is a Member of the Cabinet? The only guide we have is in Sub-section (2) of this Clause, and that is simply the test of publication in the "London Gazette."

If the printer goes mad and prints my name in the Gazette, then I suppose I. am entitled to £5,000 a year until he recovers his sanity. It is an extraordinary position. One asks, "which Ministers get £5,000 a year," and the answer is: "Those get it who are in the Cabinet." Then we ask: "Who are in the Cabinet," and we are told: "Those who get £5,000 a year." Therefore, we are going round in a circle. I am not at all sure that I view with any great pleasure the giving of legislative sanction to the existence of the Cabinet. If we are going to give that sanction, let us give it in an intelligible form. I do not welcome the recognition in statutory form of the existence of this somewhat informal committee, so called the Cabinet, because in my view Cabinets have been taking more and more upon themselves as time has gone on, and if we give them this statutory recognition I think they will become more arrogant still. Professor Berriedale Keith says:
The adoption of rules of procedure which more and more abstract the rights of private Members to secure discussions or legislation, and the absorption of the time of the Commons by the Government have contributed to the subordination of the Commons to the Cabinet.
I do not want to do anything to encourage that process, and I would much rather that we did not give this definite legislative sanction to what is said to be the constitutional head. If it is to be put into an Act of Parliament, then we ought to have some much clearer guide as to what is this mysterious body, membership of which confers the inestimable boon of a salary of £5,000 a year, and who its members really are.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I was interested when my hon. and learned Friend brought up this constitutional point, because the first thing that I noticed when going through the Bill was the strange omission to which he referred. It may be that we are all wrong and what we suggest is not necessary. At the present time no Minister of the Crown gets anything extra by way of salary for being in the Cabinet. He gets only the salary for his office in his Department. Under this Bill there will be an increase in certain cases where junior Ministers are invited by the Prime Minister to join the Cabinet. The evidence will be published in the "London Gazette," but no machinery is provided


in the Bill as to the person who shall insert that notice in the "London Gazette." The Home Secretary, in speaking on the Second Reading, said, on another point:
Hitherto, there has been no means within the law of ascertaining who is a Cabinet Minister and who is not.
A little later he said:
I think that I am right in saying that up to the present all that has happened is that, when the Prime Minister accepts from the Sovereign a commission to form a Government and in due course submits his list of Ministers, he submits a list, at the top of which appear those he proposes to have as his Cabinet colleagues, and lower down a list of those who will be outside the Cabinet."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1937; cols. 644–5, Vol. 322.]
If His Majesty accepts the list of Ministers it is in due course published in the newspapers and a statement is usually made: "The above form the Cabinet." The other Ministers are outside the Cabinet.
In this Bill, as we are for the first time recognising the Cabinet and only for the second time recognising the Prime Minister, and as we are saying that a person who is a member of this body which we are officially recognising for the first time is to receive on entering its sacred portals, £5,000 instead of perhaps £2,000 or £3,000 a year, it is surely necessary to have some provision as to who arranges it, and, if it is the Prime Minister, how he does it. Whether it should be done in the form of a letter to the "London Gazette" or in what form it should be done, is a matter on which we ought to be assured. There is a genuine point here, and I do not think that I am examining the matter over carefully or too critically when I express the hope that the Government will look into the matter.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I want to associate myself with the protest that was made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). The Government would do well to-morrow to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT the words that were addressed to them by the hon. Member, and I hope that throughout the country there will be a very wide apprehension of the fact that the Government, while setting itself to correct anomalies and to increase the financial position of its own Members, is being so obdurate in regard to anomalies as to

pensions and the general treatment of the working classes. My second point is with regard to Sub-section (2) of this Clause. I, also, have been very interested in this Sub-section, and I should have put down an Amendment had it not been for the change in the programme which was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury in rushing the consideration of the Bill. When the word "Cabinet" is being introduced into legislation there ought to be some real definition as to what is meant by it. As I see it, we are really now begininng to write our Constitution. It used to be the boast of many people in this country that our Constitution was an unwritten Constitution, and consequently flexible and responsive to the needs of the day. By the introduction into an Act of Parliament of this phrase with regard to the Cabinet, we have introduced the first sentence in writing the British Constitution. If we are to have a written Constitution let us make a proper job of it and not do it in this way by a reference to the Gazette.
I am also interested in the possible consequences. I recollect that at the close of the War the resignation of the Lord Chief Justice was announced. He was surprised when he came down to breakfast that morning to find that he had resigned. I think the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had given the notice to the "Gazette" without the Lord Chief Justice knowing anything about it. I believe it was explained afterwards that he got the job on the understanding that he would be willing to give it up whenever it was necessary for somebody else to get it. If that happens in connection with a Lord Chief Justice, many things may happen with regard to Cabinet Ministers. A Member for the Cabinet may find his name there as being no longer a Member of the Cabinet, without having had any previous knowledge of the matter. The Government are not treating this important innovation with the seriousness it deserves. It has been suggested by their own supporters that before Report stage they should consider whether something should not be put into the Bill which would be more satisfactory than the miserable reference in it to the "London Gazette." Legislation which is going to make the Cabinet a real legislative body should do it deliberately and not


by an intimation in the "London Gazette." Personally, however, I am much more interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor, and I hope that the people of the country will realise that this Government seems only to be concerned with its own salaries and not with the anomalies which are causing such hardship to old age pensioners, widows and poor people generally.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Ede: In considering this Clause we should recognise that this is the first time for many years that there has been anything like a general revision of the salaries of Cabinet Ministers in an upward direction. That is where the Minister of Health in his cursory glance at the Report of 1830 rather misled the House yesterday. The heading of that Report "Report from the Select Committee on Reduction of Salaries," and the right hon. Gentleman alluded to it as "A Select Committee which examined the question of the remuneration of Members of the Cabinet, as long ago as 1830." It was something very different from that. It was a Committee which examined the position of all Members in either House who were getting anything by way of a salary from the Government, and in those days there were many excuses for giving people salaries in order to keep their votes going in the right direction. There is one Minister who has not been mentioned, and I want to know exactly what is the position with regard to the Paymaster General. The present one is Lord Hutchison. It is most remarkable that the Government should have persuaded a Scotsman to take the only office which has no pay at all attached to it. It is an office which i1 is desirable to watch, because the Select Committee of 1830 reported:
No office under the Government was attended in earlier times with more gross abuses, both as regards the extortionate amount of salaries and the still more extortionate perquisites received from the holding and employment of public money. The office was regulated in 1784"—

The Deputy - Chairman (Captain Bourne): I do not see how the hon. Member can bring in the office of Paymaster-General.

Mr. Ede: The Paymaster-General is a Minister of the Crown and the words of the Clause are:
If and so long as any Minister of the Crown to whom this Section applies.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member will look at Sub-section (3) he will see that it applies only to certain specified Ministers, of whom the Paymaster-General is not one.

Mr. Ede: Thank you. I had overlooked that.

Mr. Stephen: But is it not the case that the Prime Minister can appoint anyone to the Cabinet by putting a notice in the "London Gazette," and he may put the Paymaster-General into the Cabinet? Therefore, cannot we draw attention to the consequence?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is mistaken. I am not questioning the right of the Prime Minister to appoint the Paymaster-General to the Cabinet, but under this Sub-section those consequences would not follow.

Mr. Maxton: Before you arrived in the Chair, Captain Bourne, we had an extended Debate and the Home Secretary indicated that he was prepared to bow to the opinion of the Committee and consider the matter between now and Report. The whole discussion on that particular Amendment was on the basis that the Clause gave to the Prime Minister an opportunity to have a Cabinet of unlimited size, which might include the Paymaster-General. Having regard to that Debate and the attitude of the Government, is not the question now put forward by the hon. Member well within the scope of the Clause?

The Deputy-Chairman: No. I must adhere to my Ruling. I heard the end of the Debate and the Chairman pointed out that under this Clause it would be possible for the Prime Minister to increase his Cabinet and that members of the Government are definitely covered by the Clause. The Paymaster-General could not be covered by the Clause in any circumstances.

Mr. Ede: We have, however, in one direction restricted the freedom of the Prime Minister in forming his Cabinet. I want to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) on the general issues involved. It is a deplorable thing at this time, with the state of affairs existing in large sections of the community, that we should be engaged on this particular Bill. I have not much


concern with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), because there have been many ways of intimating to a Minister that his services are no longer regarded as essential. I suppose the cruellest way was that adopted by the Prime Minister in the case of Charles James Fox when he addressed a note to him to the effect that "His Majesty has been pleased to appoint a new Commission of the Treasury in which I do not see your name." I have no doubt it will always be possible for an unfortunate colleague to be dropped quietly, even without the necessity of having to bring out a special edition for the purpose.

6.42 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) asked whether a Minister who receives a lower salary than £5,000 becomes a Member of the Cabinet, and then ceases to be a Member of the Cabinet, would or would not revert to his old salary. The answer is that he would revert to the salary attaching to the office he held before he became a Member of the Cabinet. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. K. Griffith) in his speech illustrated what is perhaps a characteristic of some of us. I have no doubt that in the course of his life he has referred frequently to Cabinet Ministers and he may reasonably have had some ambition that one day he would be in the Cabinet. But the mere sight of the word in a Bill made the hon. Member ask in the most judicial manner, "What is the Cabinet?" and he seems to be very exercised by the fact that the meaning of what is to him perfectly familiar is not expressly defined in the Bill. It is also perhaps characteristic of the way in which our institutions develop that this is the first time in which the word expressing the committee which is the source of executive power and the most characteristic of our constitutional institutions has been put into an Act of Parliament. But I am afraid that I must disappoint the hopes expressed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West and by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford that there is any real chance of their names appearing in the "London Gazette."
The "London Gazette" is a Government publication. Its real function is accurately to publish official appointments and official statements, whatever they may be. That is really what it is for. It is necessary for accounting purposes, in order to enable the Treasury to find out from an official source on what date salaries under the Bill would be payable to Members of the Cabinet, and when they end. It is necessary to provide that there should be official notification of that. If hon. Members who have asked questions and who have possibly had some anxiety about this matter will reflect, I think they will realise that the process is a normal one, because there are many instances of publication in the "London Gazette" carrying consequences of this kind. Promotions in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force appear in the "London Gazette," and that is why we speak of people being gazetted to a certain rank, whatever it may be. It is true that notices of other and less important matters, such as receiving orders in bankruptcy, and—this may have some reference at any rate to the end of a Cabinet—dissolutions of partnerships, and various other matters, appear in the official Gazette.
I do not wish to be too dogmatic, but I think that, in fact, practically all official appointments already appear in the "London Gazette." The only difference in this case is that the Bill makes Statutory provision for it, so that when the Prime Minister has appointed A, B, C or D as members of his Cabinet, he has, through the proper channels of communication, to have a notice sent to the "London Gazette" in order that it may appear there, with appropriate dates against the names. I think the Committee will see that it is necessary to provide for official notification of the fact that a particular Minister has Cabinet rank and is therefore entitled to the additional salary provided under this Clause. Hon. Members will also realise that the "London Gazette" is a Government publication, the whole object of which is to record official information of this kind, and that it is the proper organ in which that information should be published to the world.

6.47 p.m.

Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not met the point made


by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Kingsley Griffith), and has attempted to ride off on a joke. He said that it was remarkable that the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough had used the word "Cabinet" for years, as had all his friends, that he might at some time hope to obtain Cabinet rank, but that then he came to the House and was surprised to find in this Bill no definition of the word "Cabinet." The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that it was unnecessary to define a word which is in such common use and the meaning of which everybody knows. What is the purpose of a definition Clause in a Bill' I have in my hand a Bill which I took at random. I obtained from the Vote Office the first Bill the name of which I could remember while the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking, and it was the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Bill, which we were discussing recently.
I find that in that Bill the word "ferry" is defined. I always thought that the ferry was a pretty homely institution, and that we all knew what it was. Nevertheless, for purposes of legislation it was necessary to define it. I find a definition of "harbour." It was considered essential to define "marine work." Surely in this case it is also necessary to define the word "Cabinet." In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, the Home Secretary interested the House very much by saying—I speak subject to correction —that this was the first occasion on which the Cabinet had been mentioned in a Bill. I suggest to the Attorney-General that if this is the first time the Cabinet has been mentioned in a Bill, surely it should be defined. Consequently, I am sure that the Committee will feel that the Attorney-General has not quite met the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I wish to mention one point which arises out of Subsection (2) of this Clause. I deplore the growing custom in recent years of describing the Prime Minister as appointing the Cabinet, for the Prime Minister does not appoint any Ministers, as I understand it, but recommends to the Sovereign that the Sovereign should give his approval to the appointments. In the case of all the Ministers with whom we are concerned in this Clause, their first appointment will have been gazetted in the ordinary way, the announcement being that the Sovereign is pleased to approve their appointment. The Cabinet has been rather an obscure body, and it has been somewhat obscure whether, in addition to the Sovereign giving his approval to the appointment of particular Ministers filling the individual posts, he also approves which Ministers should be in the Cabinet.
In reading memoirs I have often seen that the Prime Minister, on forming a Cabinet, presented to the Sovereign his list of Ministers and indicated which Ministers he proposed to have as Cabinet colleagues. When these appointments with which we are now dealing, which bring a Minister outside the Cabinet inside it, are gazetted, I hope it may be possible to devise a form of words which represents that it is the Sovereign who approves, and not merely the Prime Minister who appoints. If that were not done, it would be the only occasion in which the proper formula representing the Sovereign's approval of the appointment was not used. I have ventured to raise this point because in every other case the matter is already dealt with when the first appointment is made.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 117.

Division No. 174.]
AYES.
[6.53 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, LI.-Col. G. J.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cary, R. A.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Albery, Sir Irving
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Bennett, Sir E. N.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Channon, H.


Apsley, Lord
Boyce, H. Leslie
Chorlton, A. E. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bracken, B.
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Assheton, R.
Brass, Sir W.
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Atholl, Duchess of
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Colfox, Major W. P.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Burghley, Lord
Cooke, J. 0. (Hammersmith, S.)


Balniel, Lord
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (Wst'r S. G"gs)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Carver, Major W. H.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)




Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rowlands, G.


Crooke, J. S.
Hopkinson, A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Salt, E. W.


Culverwell, C. T.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Latham, Sir P.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leckie, J. A.
Selley, H. R.


Doland, G. F.
Lees-Jones, J.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Donner, P. W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Lewis, 0.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Drewe, C.
Liddall, W. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Smith, Sir R W. (Aberdeen)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lloyd, G. W.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O S.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Duggan, H. J.
Loftus, P. C.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Eastwood, J. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C G.
Spens. W. P.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Ellis, Sir G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Elmley, Viscount
McKie, J. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Emery, J. F.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Storey, S.


Emmott, D. E. G. C.
Magnay, T.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Everard, W. L.
Markham, S. F.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Fildes, Sir H.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Findlay, Sir E.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Furness, S. N.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J,
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Gluckstein, L. H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Touche, G. C.


Goldie, N. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Train Sir J.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Patrick, C. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Penny, Sir G.
Turton, R. H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wakefield, W. W.


Gretton, Col. Rt Hon. J.
Petherick, M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Grimston, R. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Wells, S. R.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hanbury, Sir C.
Ramsbotham, H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Harbord, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)



Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ropner, Colonel L.
and Sir Henry Morris-Jores.


Holmes, J. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Foot, D. M.
Kirby, B. V.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Frankel, D.
Lathan, G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Gardner, B. W.
Leach, W.


Adamson, W. M.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lee, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Leslie, J. R.


Ammon, C. G.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Logan, D. G.


Banfield, J. W.
Graham D. M. (Hamilton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Barnes, A. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McEntee, V. La T.


Barr, J.
Grenfell, D. R.
McGhee, H. G.


Batey, J,
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
MacLaren, A.


Bellenger, F. J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maclean, N.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
MacNeill, Weir, L.


Broad, F. A.
Groves, T. E.
Mander, G. le M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Marshall, F.


Burke, W. A.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, J.


Chater, D.
Hardie, G. D.
Messer, F.


Cluse, W. S.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Milner, Major J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hayday, A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cooks, F. S.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Naylor, T. E.


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwiek)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Daggar, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Oliver, G. H.


Dalton, H.
Hollins, A.
Paling, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hopkin, D.
Parker, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parkinson, J. A.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Potts, J.


Ede, J. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, M. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.
Pritt, D. N.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon T.
Ridley, G.







Ritson, J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Whiteley, W.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Stephen, C.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Rowson, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ghfn-le-Sp'ng)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Sanders, W- S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Seely, Sir H. M.
Thorne, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Sexton. T. M
Tinker, J. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, G.)


Short. A.
Viant, S. P.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Simpson, F. B.
Walker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Watkins, F. C.



Smith, E. (Stoke)
Welsh, J. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
White, H. Graham
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

CLAUSE 4.—(Salary of Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, and pensions to persons who have been Prime Minister.)

7.1 p.m.

Sir A. Sinclair: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, to leave out "ten" and to insert "seven."
This Amendment provides that the Prime Minister's salary should be £;7,000 a year instead of £10,000 as proposed in the Bill. In making this proposal I base myself on the expression of opinion of this House and of its select committees. There is general agreement in all parts of the House that the Prime Minister of this great country should receive an adequate and a generous salary. We do not want to be paltry or niggardly about the salary we pay to him. Ministers, in supporting the proposals of their Bill, have frequently based themselves on a Resolution which this House passed last year and on the reports of the Select Committees of 1920 and 1930. In the Resolution which the House passed in the last Parliament there was no suggestion that the Prime Minister should be paid a salary of £10,000 a year as is proposed, and should in addition receive as Leader of the Opposition, if he passed into opposition, a salary of £2,000, or, if he passed out of public life altogether, a pension of £2,000 a year. Such provision for the Prime Minister is on a scale far more lavish than was ever conceived by the House of Commons when it discussed the Resolution last year, or by the Select Committees of 1920 and 1930.

Mr. McKie: They recommended £8, 000.

Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. Member is referring to the committee in 1920.

Mr. McKie: 1930.

Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. Member is at fault. It was the Select Committee of 1920 which recommended £8,000 a year. But that committee recommended no

salary for the Leader of the Opposition, and therefore when the Prime Minister ceased to be Prime Minister and passed over to the Opposition side he would have lost his salary altogether. The committee recommended no pension to the Prime Minister when he retired from public life. Quite frankly, I do not approve of a salary for the Leader of the Opposition, but I do approve the pension. But if we are to have a pension for the Prime Minister I do not think that we ought to go quite as far as the recommendations of the 1920 committee, because that committee did not provide for the advantage of a pension. I say, let him have the advantage of a pension, but if he has that advantage, a salary of £7,000 a year should be adequate.
I come to the Select Committee of 1930, which met and reported in conditions far more like those in which we live to-day than were the conditions of 1920, and they recommended that the salary of the Prime Minister should be increased from £5,000 to £7,000 a year. But, indeed, they did not recommend any salary for the Leader of the Opposition, and they did not recommend any pension. So that the proposal which I am making to-day is more generous than the suggestion made by the 1930 Committee, if you take into account the pension and the payment to the Leader of the Opposition, it is at least as generous as what any of the speakers who supported the Motion in the last Parliament suggested. There is no authority either in these two reports or in the Resolution of the House last year for paying the Prime Minister a salary as lavish as £10,000 in addition to his pension of £2,000. Therefore, I move that the salary should be £7,000 a year.

7.8 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: I must say a word in answer to what has been said by my right hon. Friend opposite, but I hope that we may be able to dispense with this matter, which affects the most important public servant in the land, without a very long


discussion. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the Select Committee of 1930 suggested that there should be immediately an increase to the figure of £7,000. I think it would be fair to say that the Committee of 1930 laid a good deal of emphasis on the fact that they felt the times were particularly difficult, and I do not think that it would be unfair to infer that if the matter had been considered in perhaps a more abstract way they would not necessarily have suggested that figure. At any rate, the earlier Committee in 1920 did in fact recommend a figure of £8,000, and there again it is right to say that that has been regarded as the minimum. When we come to the view of the House, the Resolution did not give authority for the lower of these two figures. I think the Resolution referred to the recommendations of the Committee of 1920, but we need not argue that very much.
If hon. Members will remind themselves of what was said on this subject—it is necessarily rather a delicate subject; not a subject that everyone will want to canvass in great detail—by the present Prime Minister on the Second Reading, when he spoke in very moderate tones, I do not think the Committee will be disposed to think that the figure we have suggested is too large. Very few people are able to speak here with anything like first-hand or inside information. We know that the house in which the Prime Minister lives is a burdensome house in itself. We know what the figure proposed does mean when it has suffered —and it ought to suffer—taxation. This proposal is put forward with the authority of the Government. Of course, no one will desire to allow for unnecessary extravagance. I have heard the observation made many times in these discussions that it was an outrage that the Prime Minister should receive less than the Lord Chancellor. When this Bill has passed, the Lord Chancellor will receive £10,000 and, though it is not a good argument to say that because one official is paid too much another should be paid too much as well, there is nothing in itself which appears to be other than reasonable and proper in suggesting that the holder of this high office, with its tremendous responsibilities, should receive the salary we have proposed. For my part, I entirely decline to judge this particular

question by discussing whether or not the ex-Prime Minister should have a pension. The figure we are mentioning is not mentioned as a figure in order to provide for the Prime Minister's later life. It is a figure designed for while he holds the office, and the question of whether a man who has been Prime Minister should receive a pension is quite separate. So is the question of whether the Leader of the Opposition should receive a salary, because there will be cases where an ex-Prime Minister will be Leader of the Opposition. Whether Members of Parliament should enjoy a scheme of pensions when they cease to be Members of Parliament and such questions should be dealt with quite separately.

7.13 p.m.

Captain Cazalet: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not move this Amendment, because if he has examined the evidence regarding the expense to which Prime Ministers are put, particularly in regard to 10, Downing Street, he must come to the decision, purely on £ s. d., that a net figure of somewhere between £6,000 and £7,000 is not a sum which will enable any Prime Minister to occupy Downing Street for a period of years and fulfil the social and other functions which the Prime Minister of this country must fulfil. It is not a sum which will allow him to leave Downing Street with a very large surplus' if any surplus at all. It may be that he should not have such a large house and should not entertain so much, but these are matters which are, perhaps, not germane to the argument. But there is the house and he is Prime Minister, and has to dispense a good deal of entertainment. The Prime Minister laid stress on the expense of 10, Downing Street. If you cut down the figure it only means that some future Prime Minister will have to go to the Office of Works and try to get certain expenses—almost personal expenses—which should fall on his own purse. If the right hon. Gentleman will examine that evidence he will see that this is not a figure which will allow any Prime Minister to live there in reasonable comfort and retire from his post with a very large surplus.

Sir A. Sinclair: I have not examined the evidence, but I have read the report of colleagues of mine who have examined it. They came to certain conclusions


which are recorded ion the two reports of 1920 and 1930. Those conclusions do not bear out the argument which the hon. And gallant Gentleman has addressed to the Committee.

7.16 p.m.

Colonel Gretton: Although I dislike much of this Bill, I think that this proposal is one that should receive the support of the Committee, and is actually in the public interest. It is notorious that many Prime Ministers in our history, after having filled the first office of State and done great service in their time, have left office impoverished men. That is not right or in accordance with the spirit of the times. I am not alluding to any Member of the House, in the remarks I have made, but those facts are notorious. The Committee should remember that the salaries paid to Ministers are subject to Income Tax and, in the case of £10,000 a year, to Surtax, so that the actual amount received is considerably less than the nominal amount. Everyone will agree that the first officer of State ought to be able to perform his office without personal financial anxiety, and in view of the general scale of expenditure, and of the evidence which was given before the Select Committee in 1930, I have no hesitation in supporting the proposal in the Bill.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. G. Hardie: I should like to ask why the Home Secretary keeps repeating the statement that the sum of £10,000 a year is reduced by so much Income Tax, because if anyone accepts a post outside at £10,000 a year, he has to face the payment of Income Tax. The Home Secretary repeats that a Cabinet Minister's salary is only worth so much after Income Tax has been taken off, as if there were cases outside the House where that would not happen. Why should anyone in the employ of the Government be given an additional amount to make up for Income Tax? We continully have the question raised whether or not those enjoying the salary of office spend the money they get. There is always a dirty suspicion about it. Why do the Government not say that in order to avoid any more suspicions resting on those who receive Ministers' salaries, they will pay the salary less Income Tax and with all expenses paid.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the existence of Standing Order No. 18. He is now repeating for the third time an argument I have heard him use.

Mr. Hardie: Not on this particular point.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is immaterial. The hon. Member has twice before put that argument. He must not do so a third time.

Mr. Hardie: I understood that the Rules of the House were that you must not repeat yourself in the same Debate.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the Rules.

Mr. Hardie: I will conclude by saying that since there are doubts whether these men spend the money or not the Government should make the thing clean, and cut out all those things that raise doubts.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I support the Amendment, although I think that the figure mentioned is much too high. I intervene in the Debate because of the speech made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), who usually sits alongside me, in which he talked about Prime Ministers leaving office in a state of poverty. I cannot remember, looking back over the Prime Ministers who have come within my ken, one who has ended his life in anything that I recognise by the name of poverty. I can think back over a good number. There are those who are still in this House. There is the Lord President of the Council. I can remember, in his early days in politics, when he lived in circumstances that could be described as genteel poverty, but not in these latter years. I have never seen the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Borough (Mr. Lloyd George) in any condition that moved me to compassion —and I am always sympathetic towards the poor. I have recollections of Mr. Bonar Law, of Lord Balfour, of Lord Rosebery, of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and of Lord Asquith. I cannot think of one of them who ended his life in abject poverty, or in such a position that he could not give his family opportunities which they would never


have got had their father not held this particular post.
To talk about finishing office in an impoverished condition is so much humbug and nonsense. I never experienced the hospitality of 10, Downing Street. In my 15 years membership of the House I have called at 10, Downing Street twice, with unemployed deputations, and both times we were turned off the doorstep by the butler. That is my experience of the hospitality of 10. Downing Street. It may be that on £5,000 a year the hospitality extended at 10, Downing Street has been of a simpler and less lavish kind than it might be, but it is all to the good that the head of the State should set an example of decent simplicity and kindliness, of homely hospitality rather than of gorgeous displays of lavish feasting and winebibbing. It is all to the good that the head of the State should adopt even a severe simplicity in his ways of life and in his hospitality. I am against the proposal to make a substantial increase. The figure could quite well have remained where it was. I can remember that when the present holder of the office first became Prime Minister he described himself, not as the leader or the chief, but as Primus inter pares—first among equals. I think that that might have been maintained so far as the financial position is concerned, and that there should have been an equality right through the Cabinet. An equality even on a lower level than 5,000 a year would have been adequate to meet the reasonable needs of life and the maintenance of the so-called dignities of public office. Since the Government are proposing a doubling of the emoluments, and since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) has moved a substantial reduction, I will certainly support the Amendment as against the proposal of the Government.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: I am sorry to intrude on the Committee, not having heard the whole of the discussion, but on each occasion when I have been here I have wanted to take part and there has not seemed to be an opportunity. To all these proposals I am in straight opposition, and I am particularly in opposition to the proposal to increase the salary of the Prime Minister. On one occasion

when we were discussing these matters I said I thought all the Members of the House should be paid one level salary, and, just as on the county council we give time and service for no remuneration, so we might do here. I have been surprised to hear all the talk there is about the expenditure at Downing Street. Before the House of Commons was called upon to consider these proposals, the whole question of the upkeep and the cost of Downing Street and Chequers to the National Exchequer should have been gone into. We should really know what the State has to supply in the way of services and furniture to 10, Downing Street. I may be told that, as I held the office of First Commissioner, I ought to remember, but I have forgotten. I know that there are fairly large services that are paid for out of the Consolidated Fund for the upkeep for both places.
It is a mistake at this time to single out the Prime Minister for doubling the salary. I am tired of hearing discussions as to the expenses of the office. The Government Hospitality Fund ought to supply all the hospitality that the Prime Minister or any other Minister is called upon to give. The existence of that fund ought to be sufficient to guarantee that whatever entertainments of a public nature are necessary will be paid for. When we discuss the value of the emoluments of the Prime Minister do not let us forget that we are also making provision whereby he will be entitled to a pension at the rate of £2,000 a year, which, under the present rate of taxation will give him, I suppose, about £1,500 net. He will not be too badly off on that, and will be able to live in accordance with what is decent, having regard to the position he has previously held.
We cannot judge this proposal for £10,000 without taking into account the cost of the upkeep of the two residences, and we ought to know what part the State does towards that. I am not a person who was not glad to be paid £2,000 a year, I think it was, but I went into office with a deficit and I came out of it with one, because I am built that way. Some of us can be poor on any amount of money, or poor on a small sum of money. I am not a person who backs horses, or gambles, but I do get rid of money. I am credited with not knowing the value of money. But the point I want to make is that the country did not


get any better service out of me as First Commissioner of Works by paying me £2,000 a year than it would have got out of me if I had been selected to do that job just as a Member of the House.
When I think of the unpaid work done by members of local authorities, I feel that is one of the things of which our country can be most proud. Listening to the discussion about these salaries, I have felt that we forget the enormous amount of work which is done by people who are very poor, many of them doing it without any remuneration, and I do not think we are honouring the position of Prime Minister by making a fuss about the private entertaining he does—he need not give any public entertainments at his own expense—and then, on top of that, pleading that he must not be left impoverished at the end of his term of office, because we are providing for that by a pension of £2,000 a year. I think we ought to keep the salary at £5,000, but as the £5,000 Amendment has not been called I hope we shall all vote for the £7,000, though I think that is £2,000 too much.

7.35 p.m.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I think that there is a great deal to be said for the argument which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward as to the necessity for inquiring into the expenses which necessarily fall upon the Prime Minister of this country. I do not quarrel with that suggestion, but I would merely point out that to-night we have to deal with the situation as it is. I do not think his remarks, with which I entirely agree, regarding the valuable work done voluntarily throughout the country have any bearing upon this question, because there we are dealing with offices which are not full-time jobs and with people who either have an opportunity of making money in other directions or have retired from active business after a life in which they have provided for their leisure. The main argument of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was that in this case it was not desirable to pay any salary in the neighbourhood of £5,000 or £7,000, because that was not necessary for the style in which the Prime Minister had to live. That, again, I suggest, is a point of view which we cannot usefully discuss to-night.
To my mind, the problem is a perfectly simple one and resolves itself into this:

Is the amount which the Prime Ministers of the future will receive—assuming, as I think we are bound to do, that the present rate of taxation or something like it, will continue for some time—sufficient to enable any man chosen by the country to be Prime Minister to enter upon his office, to fulfil it and to leave it without being any poorer than when he enters it? On another occasion it may be desirable to argue that he should not have to do this, or that, and that the whole scale on which the head of the Government lives should be a different one from that which exists to-day, but I do not think there is any Member who would desire that under present circumstances the Prime Minister should live and should entertain on a scale which would be out of keeping with the position of this country in the world to-day. Whatever we may decide in the future has nothing to do with the present problem. The whole problem to-night is whether any man who has no private means can enter upon the office of Prime Minister, serve in that office for a number of years, and leave it no poorer than when he entered it on a smaller salary than the one which is being proposed.
I do not think the hon. Member for Bridgeton can fairly say that because this country has been fortunate through, perhaps, hundreds of years in having had as Prime Ministers men with private means, and who did not, therefore, as he put it, die in poverty, that that is an argument which we can take into account when we are considering a future in which we may very badly want as Prime Minister some man who has no private means at all. If we look at it from that point of view, remembering that this £10,000 will probably become only £6,000 or £7,000 after the deduction of taxation, and consider what, in present circumstances, the Prime Minister has to do in the way of entertaining and the style in which he has to live, I suggest that it would not be right for this Committee to pass any figure which would not enable any person in the State to occupy that office and to leave it as well off as when he entered it. With these few words I shall strongly support the proposal in the Bill.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Mender: My right hon. Friend put his arguments in favour of this Amendment in a very effective way, with clearly stated reasons, and I think this is a


Debate in which Members in all quarters of the House would desire to state their position. I have been looking forward with great interest to hear what guidance we shall receive from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was speaking on their behalf.

Mr. Lansbury: No.

Mr. Mander: The right hon. Gentleman repudiates that suggestion, and so perhaps we shall hear something from that Front Bench before the Debate closes. It has been suggested that those on the Opposition Front Bench have a close personal interest in this Bill.

Mr. James Griffiths: If the hon. Member will read the Amendment on the Paper standing in our names, he will see what position we on these benches take up.

Mr. Mander: I saw that Amendment, but it does not bear the name of any of the Leaders of the Opposition, and therefore I am genuinely interested in knowing where they stand. It is suggested that they have some personal interest in this, but we all know, though it is a very regrettable fact, that the Labour party have no chance whatever

of coming into office in any forseeable future.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not see how that question arises.

Mr. Mander: May I explain? [Interruption.] Surely an individual in immediate expectation of receiving one of these salaries has a rather different interest in the matter than one who has not. I regret very much that the Labour party have no chance of coming into office immediately. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that we shall receive guidance on that subject. To turn to the merits of the case. At first sight there is a great attraction in saying that the Prime Minister should be the highest paid civil servant in the whole country, because it is the greatest position, but when we come to look into it that argument has already gone, because the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and, possibly, certain other Ministers are already paid sums considerably in excess of what the Prime Minister receives. Therefore we are driven back to other grounds, and I cannot help thinking that on those grounds there is a great deal to be said for the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend.

Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 105.

Division No. 175.]
AYES.
[7.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gluckstein, L. H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Gower, Sir R. V.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Colfox, Major W. P.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooke, J. O. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Apsley, Lord
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Grimston, R. V.


Assheton, R.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hannah, I. C.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Crooke, J. S.
Hannon, Sir P. d. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Harbord, A.


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Doland, G. F.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Donner, P. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Holmes, J. S.


Bracken, B.
Duggan, H. J.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. 0. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Eastwood, J- F.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Burghley, Lord
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Burgin, Or. E. L.
Ellis, Sir G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Butler, R. A.
Elmley, Viscount
Latham, Sir P.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Emery, J. F.
Leckie, J. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V
Lees-Jones, J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Fildes, Sir H.
Lewis, O.


Caznlet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Findlay, Sir E.
Liddall, W. S.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lloyd, G. W.


Channon, H.
Furness, S. N.
Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.




McKie, J. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Sutcliffe, H.


Magnay, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Markham, S. F.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Rowlands, G.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Turton, R. H.


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Salt, E. W.
Wakefield, W. W.


Moreing, A. C.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Nail, Sir J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Watt, G. S. H.


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wells, S. R.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Penny, Sir G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Petherick, M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Spens, W. P.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Ramsbotham, H.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ramsden, Sir E.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)



Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Lieut. - Colonel Llewellin and


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Stuart, Hor.. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Commander Southby.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Groves, T. E.
Pritt, D. N.


Ban field, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barr, J
Hardie, G. D.
Rowson, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hayday, A.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Sanders, W. S.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hollins, A.
Short, A.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cassells, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lathan, G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Leach, W.
Thorne, W.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Welsh, J. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Whiteley, W.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Evans, O. O. (Cardigan)
Mathers, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson, R. (Greonock)
Oliver, G. H.



Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.
Sir Hugh Seely and Mr. Dingle Foot.

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.50 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Committee has now decided that the salary of the Prime Minister shall be £10,000 a year, and one of the arguments in support of that proposition was that it was essential to provide a salary which would make it sure that no Prime Minister when he left office—

and did not become Leader of the Opposition, in view of the proposal in the next Clause—would have to live in poverty. It occurred to me that that argument might have occurred to the Government in connection with another Measure that we are passing through this House. Some of us are trying to get the Government to lift the income limit under another Bill beyond £400, and the reply has been that a man with an income of £400 and


a woman with an income of £250 have ample funds to provide for their own old age pensions. It seems to me to be a gross inconsistency to suggest that a Prime Minister who is to receive £10,000 a year is also to be provided with a pension of £2,000.
Before I came to this House, I sat on a committee, which is still going on in my absence, and going on very well, trying to work up a scheme in South Wales to provide pensions for miners. The owners made a gift, the men made a gift, and we are trying to work out a scheme which will be of great value to that industry and will provide, in a couple of years, some 2,000 pensions for men in the industry. That scheme is being held up by the Government because they will not make the gesture of saying that if these old men

get this 10s. a week, it will not be taken into consideration—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we had better not pursue that subject on this Clause.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank you, Captain Bourne, for the permission to call the attention of the country to the fact that the Government can be so lavish and yet so niggardly. I cannot let this Clause pass without making my protest against the Government for not acting with the same generosity towards the poorer people as they do towards people who. get salaries of £10,000 a year.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 102.

Division No. 176.]
AYES.
[7.53 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Albery, Sir Irving
Ellis, Sir G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Elmley, Viscount
Penny, Sir G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Emery, J. F.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Apsley, Lord
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Petherick, M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Pickthorn, K. W, M.


Assheton, R.
Fildes, Sir H.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Findlay, Sir E.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Furness, S. N.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thane.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balniel, Lord
Gower, Sir R. V.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gridley Sir A. B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Hannah, I. C.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bracken, B.
Harbord, A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brass, Sir W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rowlands, G.


Burghley, Lord
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Butler, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Salt, E. W.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon J. W. (Ripon)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Carver, Major W. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Selley, H. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Channon, H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Latham, Sir P.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Leckie, J. A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lees-Jones, J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Lewis, O.
Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Liddall, W. S.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Lloyd, G. W.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Spens. W. P.


Cranborne, Viscount
Loftus, P. C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Craven-Ellis, W.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
McKie, J. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crooke, J. S.
Magnay, T.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Markham, S. F.
Sutcliffe, H.


Doland, G. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Donner, P. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Moreing, A. C.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Duggan, H. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Turton, R. H.


Eastwood, J. F.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wakefield, W. W.




Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wells, S. R.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Particle)


Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Williams, C. (Torquay)



Waterhouse, Captain C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Watt, G. S. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Major Sir George Davies and


Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pritt, D. N.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Hardie, G. D.
Rowson, G.


Barr, J
Hayday, A.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Sanders, W. S.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Hollins, A.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Short, A.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly>


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Leach, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar, G.
Logan, 0. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dalton, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walker, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Walkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Welsh, J. C.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Evans, D. 0. (Cardigan)
Mathers, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Oliver, G. H.



Graham, O M. (Hamilton)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.⁄


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.
Mr Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

CLAUSE 5.—(Salary of Leader of Opposition.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: This is a Clause which gives the Leader of the Opposition a salary of £2,000. It is my intention, along with my colleagues, to oppose the Clause. I think, with the exception of the time when I was present in the Factories Bill Committee to-day, from 4 to 6 o'clock, I have listened to practically all the speeches made on this Bill. The criticisms of the suggested payments have taken various forms. Some have taken the form that certain Ministers are overpaid for the work they have to do, and other Members have taken the view that while an increase could be justified this is a very inopportune time to do it in view of the country's financial position. Another view taken has been that while the House of Commons is demanding for many poor people in this country decent pensions and decent unemployment benefit, and while the Government see

fit constantly to oppose these things, it is the duty of those who have been advocating them to oppose any increase of Members' salary, while those in charge refuse to pay others a decent living allowance. I oppose the Clause for all those reasons, and for additional reasons.
I oppose the Clause on constitutional grounds. This is the first time that a payment has been made to a Leader of the Opposition. For a payment to he made to that Leader it must be justified on public grounds. Once you concede payment to the Leader of the Opposition, you automatically concede payment to other members of the Opposition as well. For example, we concede payment to members of the Government, and once we have done that we must concede payment to all the Members necessary for the machinery of Government, from the Whips and other persons upward. Once you concede the payment to an Opposition, you automatically concede that an Opposition provides certain functions in this House, not merely as an Opposition, but as servants of the country and of


the Crown, and that, therefore, every part of its machinery ought to be paid. There is no difference in essence between the chief Leader and the Whip. There may be a difference in the degree of payment; and it may be that he performs more important functions, but once you have conceded payment to the chief Leader, automatically the Whips should be paid, all Whips as well. Once you have conceded that, then the secretary of the party should be paid, because he is necessary for the machinery to carry on the Opposition.
If you grant a sum to the Leader of the Opposition, then that Leader is paid out of public funds, raised by the House of Commons, and as such he ought to be the servant, not of the Opposition, but of the House of Commons. The Leader of the Opposition to-day cannot be the servant of anyone but the Labour party. He cannot be the servant of the Opposition; he is the Leader of the Labour party and, by their constitutional rules, must carry out the decisions of that party. The constitution of the Labour party, for good or ill—it is not my purpose to criticise it or to praise or blame it; I take it as an accomplished fact—says that a person who is in it must sign what are called the standing orders, and must carry out what is decided on at its private meetings. The Leader must carry that out. He may run in contradiction to other parties of the Opposition, and he is not our servant as Leader of the Opposition, but the servant of the Labour party in the Opposition. As such, he has no more right to claim to be paid by us than has the secretary of the Labour party. If he is a leader of the Labour party, and has services to render to it, he ought to be paid by the machinery of that party, and no one else.
There used to be a theory in the House of Commons that the Leader of the Opposition was not merely Leader of the Opposition, but that he defended minority rights in the House of Commons. The theory was that the more unpopular a Member was, and the more he was disliked, that was all the more reason why, if he was unfairly treated by the House or anyone else here, the duty of the Leader of the Opposition was to safeguard his rights. I have seen that theory worked once or twice in my early days, but not now for many years. For years

it has completely vanished. I remember, in my early political days, that a small group of us wished to divide against the Government on a question of unemployment insurance, because we thought the Government were acting wrongly. Certain Members wanted to deny us the right to vote, and demanded that we should be made to stand up in our places. I remember that the Opposition at that time took the view that if we were to be treated like that it was not fair, and they decided, though not on the merits of the question, to vote with us on the ground that we were entitled to a Division. That is the only case I can recall in which the Opposition has in any way defended the rights of private Members.
Take last night. There was then, in my view, a need of defence of those rights. By arrangement, or at least without protest, the Government Chief Whip suddenly announced at 12 o'clock at night that the whole order of business for the next day was to be turned aside. That was an interference with the rights of the ordinary Member of the House of Commons. I go further on this issue and say that the Opposition here changes on certain issues. The Opposition is not always above or below the Gangway; sometimes it is across the Floor, and in most Governments the most serious opposition is from its own side. In the case of India it came from the Conservatives, and on the Budget there is a certain section which oppose. On the issue of the Monarchy, for good or ill, opposition came from two or three Conservatives; and on Free Trade the group of Members who sit behind me constantly change. When they change and a small group fights in this House, I have never noticed that the Leader of the Opposition defends the rights of that small group in any particular way. He has very often joined in taking from them, if he could, any of the rights they had.
We are proposing to grant £2,000. I listened to-day to what, I think, was one of the finest speeches I have ever heard for human interest and commonsense from the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). Often I have heard sentimentalists in the House, but it will be a bad day for the House and for all of us when people lose a sentiment such as is possessed by the hon. Member. His speech contained sentiment at its best and noblest. It was as follows: "I have


asked for pensions. I have been refused; I have asked for decent treatment for the unemployed and I have been refused; and to-day you are granting increase after increase while, at the same time, you deny to these people what they are legitimately entitled to." Here to-day is an increase of £40 a week to be paid, while you are refusing pensions. If the argument is true as applied to the Prime Minister or to others, it is equally true as applied to the Leader of the Opposition. Here you are granting to one man an income of £40 a week, while you deny to the poorest of the poor a legitimate pension which they require.
I want to carry this further. When a person is granted public funds by the House of Commons, whether he be the chief of a Service Department, or of any Department on a Civil Vote, he is amenable to the House of Commons. I can move, if I am in order and get the time, to reduce the salary of any one of the Ministers; we have 20 Supply days practically all for that purpose. What is the position of the Leader of the Opposition? There will be no such privilege. His salary is to be placed on the Consolidated Fund. Who are on the Consolidated Fund? So far as I know the following three groups or persons: His Majesty's Judges, the theory being that the judges should be above political battle, that you should place them on a footing outside the political hurly-burly, and protected from political pressure by this or that party. Their salary is immune from political pressure. That is No. 1. I understand—I am not sure about this—that the Monarchy comes in the same category. In the third category is the Chairman of the Unemployment Assistance Board, Lord Rushcliffe. His Majesty's Judges and the Leader of the Opposition are in the same boat. We fought bitterly when Lord Rushcliffe was to be put outside Parliamentary criticism; to-day, there is the same proposal with regard to a person occupying a central political position, in some ways second in importance only to that of the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition is kept in his place through political opinion, and yet his income is to be lifted on to the same plane as that of a judge, and no criticism will be levelled at him. He is immune from the ordinary House of Commons battle.
I take a serious view of this proposal, and I hope, in my opposition to it, I

have not been abusive or personal. I would have criticised whether the person who occupied the post were a Conservative or a member of any other party. I have no feeling against the present Leader of the Opposition, who carries out his duties honestly and faithfully. I thought that the leadership of the Opposition in the last Parliament, when the Opposition was much smaller, that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbuiy) was as fine a leadership as I have ever seen in the House of Commons. I have never opposed him, and, despite our differences, I like him as well as one human being can like another. The present issue is that we should subsidise by a payment, and put outside criticism the Leader whom the people have elected to oppose. The most fatal step in matters of this kind is always the first step. After that, you are liable to get into a steady drift. I have seen it happen in the trade union movement and in politics.
Most of the criticism of the last Labour Government was based upon its final acts, but to me those final acts were not so important as were the first steps, such as their Economy Committee. Once the Government had ventured upon that step, they had to go only a short distance before all the rest followed. Their opponents are now proposing to pay their Leader £2,000 and, whether they like the consequence or not, that is a first step towards putting the Opposition to some extent into a position of being bound to the Government. Even though we are the only group to do so, we shall vote against this proposition.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: On this Clause I speak with a great deal of reluctance, for a variety of reasons, but partly because, if I have the courage to do it, I am tempted to address the Committee at greater length than I have ever ventured upon before, not seeing how the case can be put shortly. I am reluctant because no one, I believe, is more anxious than I am to do everything that can be done to free political careers from the financial qualification. I am reluctant also because we have been told that this is particularly a proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury. Apart from all the other reasons for disliking opposition or doubt about a proposal of his, there is the reason that, in constitutional matters, I


think it fair to say, what can be put as reasoned, quantitative argument is very frequently less important than the feeling, that is, the sentiment, almost what one might call the hunch, which you have about a constitutional matter such as that which is in question. If that be true, it is clear that the hunch or inspiration of people of eminence and experience, and particularly the Prime Minister, must, on this subject, carry much more weight, and properly, than the hunches of private Members, Members so private as to be almost imperceptible.
Nevertheless I feel it necessary to resist this proposal. In the first place, it is clearly illogical that it should be proposed that the State should pay opposition; secondly, it clearly is an innovation; and, whatever we may think in other matters—I hope I shall carry the Committee with me—the presumption in constitutional matters must always be against innovation. The presumption is rebuttable, but the presumption must be there. Unless we have an absolutely fixed Constitution, or a presumption against innovation, we clearly have no Constitution at all. In this case the proposal runs counter to—I will not say a principle, but to a normal and very useful rule-of-thumb about taxation and representation, or the relationship between paying pipers and calling tunes. We must not forget that what is proposed is that a Parliamentary majority, which, because it is a Parliamentary majority, can use force to take pennies from people, shall use its authority to collect pennies from the people and give those pennies to a man whom the people have decided they do not want.
It may be said that £2,000 out of the pennies that people are going to pay is an insignificant proportion, but I do not think that, on these matters of constitutional principle, it is a good defence to say that the baby is a very little one, or that the essence of the matter is altered by putting it out to nurse to the Consolidated Fund. In any case, public payments to public men should be for public service, for service to the State. It is true, of course, in a sense, that the Leader of the Opposition performs a service to the State, but so does everybody else who does his work and does it properly. Have we not the authority of the poet for saying:

Who sweeps a room, as for Thy laws, Makes that and th' action fine.
Nevertheless, it would not be considered legitimate if the Archbishop of Canterbury paid the funds put at his disposal for ecclesiastical purposes to the cleaners of offices in Whitehall, on the ground that they were performing divine service when they swept out the dirt. It cannot be said to be in any sense a valid argument to say that the services which the Leader of the Opposition performs are public services in the sense that is meant.
That brings me to the point which was made in the very powerful speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) about the thin end of the wedge. If you look at the Financial Memorandum explaining the Bill, you see that it says:
When a new Department is first created it is often of comparatively minor importance, and accordingly the salaries fixed by the statutes creating such Departments have usually been lower than the non-statutory salaries paid in the case of the older Departments.
They have been fixed round about £2,000 a year. When I spoke on the Second Reading I ventured to say that this was a very good opportunity for using this thin end of the wedge argument, and the hon. Gentleman who alone among the Independent Liberals, in preferring me to his dinner has done me the honour to agree. He dotted my "i's" and crossed my "t's" by putting down an Amendment for the remuneration of the Deputy-Leader and of the Chief Opposition Whip.
No doubt it is convenient for the Government that the Opposition should be organised in a particular way, and that it should have one individual at its head, but that is not the Government's business. It is the Opposition's business how they are to be organised and led. How can you pay the Leader of the Opposition? Do you pay him on the justification of the last General Election, when the people decided that he was not wanted, or are you to pay him on the justification of the next General Election? You do not know whether he will be returned at the next election either; not merely because you may, on this side of the House, hope to be still here after the next General Election, but also because someone else, some third party, may very well cut in ahead of him before the next General Election is over. For


all those reasons I feel no doubt that there is an inescapable element of illogicality in the proposal.
Nor can I doubt that the degree of innovation in the proposal is considerable. We had an historical disquisition from the Home Secretary about Prime Ministers, Cabinets and so on. It may be held that the Prime Ministership is just about ripe for being put into an Act of Parliament but—I admit being by profession a pedant and by nature oldfashioned—we have had Prime Ministers for something like 400 years, and under their present name for something like 300 years. Perhaps that office is just about ripe to be put on the Statute Book; on the other hand the office of Leader of the Opposition is something very much newer. The Leader of the Opposition, in anything like the modern sense, is hardly older than the oldest man among us. I think that it was not until the late sixties, when Mr. Gladstone threw his hat into the ring in competition with Lord Stanley, that there was a Leader of the Opposition in the sense not of a man who most criticised the Government on the way they were doing their business and hoped that, in the long run, his criticism would get the Government out; but in the sense of a man who put up a different programme, with different subjects on which to base his programme and upon which he fought, who looks round to see what is likely to interest the public—the Irish Church or the means test.
The Leader of the Opposition, then, is not a very ancient or well established office. The Leader of the Opposition in a contemporary sense is absolutely new. If people mean what they say nowadays, we have an Opposition which not merely wants to turn out the Government but to pull up the roots of society, to alter the fundamental basis of family, country, property, and so on to which the majority of people, rightly or wrongly, have held and to which, as far as we can tell from recent elections, the majority still wish to hold.

Mr. Mathers: Will the hon. Member prove his statement that those who belong to the Labour party wish to alter the fundamental basis of the family?

Mr. Pickthorn: The fundamental basis of the family in the old days, surely, wa s the responsibility of the father for

the maintenance and direction of the children and, rightly or wrongly, the whole business of socialising the education and management and direction of children is a fundamental alteration. It will not be denied, surely, that the modern Opposition cuts at the basis of things. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not family life."] I am sorry if I have said anything more controversial than is necessary to my argument. I had no intention of raising party issues. It seems clear to me, then, that there are these negative presumptions, of a certain want of logic and a high degree of innovation, against the proposal and, if these presumptions are to be rebutted, it must be shown that the positive tendencies which the Clause is likely to set up will be good ones. What are the positive tendencies to be expected? Obviously, first of all an improvement in the financial position of the Leader of the Opposition, and no one, I suppose, is against that. Certainly, I am not in the least against it. Rut the improvement would be equally great if the money came from other sources, and, if the £2,000 cannot be got from his supporters, either in the House or out of it, it means that the majority of the taxpayers are being compelled to do for the man they have decided against what his own supporters are unwilling to do.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Have the taxpayers elected the Prime Minister as Prime Minister of the country? Did they nave the opportunity?

Mr. Pickthorn: The taxpayers did not elect the Prime Minister in a direct sense, but I do not think I should be helping the House if I pursued that question. The second positive tendency that must be set up is this. We have been told all through these discussions that the question of salary is not so much a question of money in itself, but that prestige and status are reckoned to a considerable extent in terms of money. That, no doubt, is true. The second positive tendency, therefore, must be to increase the importance of the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that the importance of the Leader of the Opposition is already sufficient. It would be impertinent for me to praise the existing Leader of the Opposition, but I have no doubt that he is capable of making the position as important as it ought to be. Importance must be relative, therefore to take statutory action to increase the


importance of the Leader of the Opposition must really proportionally decrease the importance of private Members.
It what is necessary is to have an Opposition, you could not run an Opposition on £2,000 a year, and I cannot believe that that amount of contribution to the Opposition budget really makes very much difference. Nor can I believe that it makes very much difference that the money should come to the Leader of the Opposition not from his own followers, as I think it ought; but if it does not, there is this to be remembered, that the qualification to collect the money does come from them. There would be various effects. One would be a tendency against the selection of ex-Prime Ministers, on the ground that they were already getting £2,000 a year, and it was someone else's turn. Secondly, if it is said to be important that there should be no argument against selecting a man because he is poor, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a bargain being made with any Leader of the Opposition that the money should go to general party funds.
I am very diffident about the next point that I want to make, because it may appear to concern, and, indeed, does concern, the business of the Chair. It seems to me, if I may just refer to Clause 10, without which this Clause is meaningless, because it defines the words that we are using, that the position of the Chair is going to be made very difficult by this business of deciding to what political leader public money shall be paid for leading his party. He is the person who is the leader for the time being; it is an annual salary. There are a great many factors which may change very rapidly. It is not merely that a party as a whole may change, or that the party may depose one leader and set up another, but any individual member of the party may at any moment withhold his support, either forming a new party, joining another party, or doing neither. The question of who is the leader of the largest party may be in a state of flux, and extremely difficult to watch.
Another effect of increasing the importance of the Leader of the Opposition would be, I think, to diminish the freedom of choice of Prime Minister. The

natural assumption is that, on a change of majority, it is always the Leader of the Opposition who succeeds the Prime Minister, but I think it will be found that the majority of the cases are anomalous cases, that there are more cases where things are not normal than where they are normal. If the Leader of the Opposition is to be an officially certificated and salaried person, I think he is going to have something very much more like a vested interest than he had before, and the State is going proportionately to lose that elasticity without which it would have found it very difficult to get on in the last century, and rather more difficult in the recent past than in the more remote past.
Connected with this tendency to give the Leader of the Opposition additional importance is another consideration. I am not sure whether it is a good or a bad consideration. It must, I think, tend to stereotype a two-party system. If the Leader of the Opposition is to be paid, the tendency will be more and more to regard his party as the only party other than the Government party, and it seems to me to be oddly paradoxical that, having for more than 20 years lived through an almost continual series of coalitions designed to replace the old way of getting the motive power by the tension between two parties, we should at the end of that period he invited to make sure of an Opposition by subsidising it.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Does not the Parliamentary system of Government such as we have in this country pre-suppose two dominant groups within the House?

Mr. Pickthorn: I could argue that point, but, honestly, I do not think a two-party division would carry us much further in the consideration of this Clause. I am not arguing whether it is good or not; my personal prejudices are in favour of it; but that would be one of the tendencies of this provision, and the Committee ought, therefore, to consider it. Why should we try to make sure of an Opposition by that method? If to have an Opposition organised with a single Leader be the way in which the democracy wishes Parliament to be worked, then there is no doubt that the democracy will see that the thing is done in that way; but I do not see why democracy should be coerced by all the forces of Government into having the thing done in that way.
There are more things that I could say, but I have already spoken for longer than I like to speak. I do not wish to put the considerations I have adduced too high. I do not say they are desperately terrifying, I do not believe that, if this Clause is passed, civilisation will come to an end. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There are a great many hon. Members who are inclined to believe that, if this or that happens, civilisation will come to an end. I do, however, ask, what is the hope for which we are to run the risks which I believe to exist? Is it merely to stabilise the division into Right and Left? Is it merely to help a personage—I say "personage," because, as far as the person goes, I am sure we shall all wish to help him—who, I think, could be helped in other and better ways? I have heard it suggested that a Leader of the Opposition paid by Government—because, however much you tie it up with Consolidated Funds and so on, that is what it means—would make extraordinary efforts, more than normal efforts, to display his independence and effectiveness; but I do not believe it is wise to induce people to be so upright that they fall over backwards. If anyone thinks—as I myself do not think—that it is necessary to spur the zeal of Leaders of the Opposition, I would suggest that: they should get at it from the other end. The reward of a Leader of the Opposition, apart from the consciousness of duty done which he shares with all Members of the House, is the chance of office, the chance of bolting the other fellows out of the place where they sit; and I would suggest that that is his proper reward, and quite enough to spur his zeal.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member who represents me in the House upon his very interesting speech, which I am sure I prefer immensely to any possible dinner within these precincts. I want shortly to express the views of those of us who sit here with regard to this proposal. We are entirely against this innovation, and very much regret that the Government, in a moment of generosity, or good will, or whatever it may be, should have thought it was a wise gesture to make. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who dealt with the whole matter in such a masterly way, put his finger on the point when he said that you cannot stop there.

You cannot simply pick out the Leader of the Opposition and subsidise him.
If you have once done that, you give away the whole case, and there will be the strongest arguments from time to time that other persons who may be associated with the conduct of the Opposition, playing, in their way, perhaps just as important a part as the Leader, should to some extent receive financial assistance. There is the Deputy-Leader, there is the Chief Whip, there are other Whips; and one can quite understand that arguments for an extension of the principle might well be put forward. If that were done, I should certainly think it would create the impression in the country, a quite untrue impression, of course, that after all there was not so very much between the Government and the Opposition—I am not talking about any particular Opposition—that they were all in the swim, that they were all salaried officers of the State; and it would tend to undermine confidence in the working of the British Constitution, which has been such a wonderful product of our genius and such a good example to all the other nations of the world. Unfortunately, they have not yet followed it as much as I hope they will in due course.
It has been argued that one of the best reasons for doing this is that it would be a gesture to Hitler that, at a moment when he is putting his Opposition in concentration camps, or dealing even more drastically with it, we are paying our Opposition Leader a salary. There are all sorts of ways of impressing a dictator, but I think I could suggest some that would be very much more effective than this proposal. Of course, I should be entirely out of order if I were to go into them, hut I cannot help thinking, for example, that a firm, consistent and clear foreign policy would be infinitely more impressive to the German Government than any proposal to give a salary to the Leader of the Opposition. There is the difficulty that may be created by the existence of more than one Opposition in this House. At the present time there is a great disparity in numbers between the Opposition parties. There is one of about 155, one of 20, one of three, and, I believe, one of one. There are at least four Oppositions. Perhaps it is rather difficult to foresee when they may come towards an equality in numbers.
Let me go back to the case which occurred in 1931, when the Labour party were the Official Opposition, being about 50 in number, and would have been entitled to the remuneration. But the party that came second in the House was the Liberal party, which was divided, some being in the Government and some outside. [Interruption.] I am trying to deal with the situation that might have developed under this Clause. That party at one time wholly supported the Government, the whole 70 of them, and about half of them came over here and were in a minority as regards the Labour party. If the other half had decided to come over, then they would have been the Official Opposition. They would have been 70, as against 50 of the Labour party. It would have been rather a humiliating position for the Leader of the Opposition to lose his emoluments and be displaced.
There is the possibility in the future of there being more than one Opposition party stronger in numbers than they are now, with distinctive points of view, because all attempts at a popular front seem to be entirely out of the picture. It would not seem fair that one particular section of the Opposition should be officially recognised and the others should receive no recognition at all. However that may be, perhaps it is not as important as some of the other arguments. The strongest argument against this innovation is that it is contrary to the traditions of our constitutional development. The only element that is recognised by the Constitution is that we all, as Members of Parliament, receive actually the same amount. Apart from that, the Government of the day is in possession of all the offices, the occupants of which are remunerated for the work they do. It might be said that at a General Election one of the things that the voters do is to select who shall be Leader of the Opposition. You might be in a position to say, "We want so-and-so as Prime Minister and so-and-so as Leader of the Opposition." We should have to be very careful so to adjust our votes in order to give the right people the right jobs, and not make the Prime Minister the Leader of the Opposition, and vice versa. It is contrary to the way we have developed, and introduces a complication, which there will be great pressure to extend as time goes on. It is necessary,

in order to avoid misunderstanding in the country, and in the interests of the Opposition parties themselves, that the position should remain what it has been up to the present time.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: It is very remarkable to hear the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) agreeing with one another. The hon. Member for Gorbals argued the case most convincingly on its merits, and the hon. Member for Cambridge University based it on tradition, and both of them appeared to make out an unanswerable case against this Measure. I have never liked it, but if I wanted to argue the matter from a party point of view I should agree to it. I have listened to arguments from the opposite side with respect to what we have already done. The chief argument has been that we are adding to the burden of the country at a time when there are depressed areas and the money ought to be spent on those areas. Hon. Members opposite must realise now that they cannot use that argument against us because they are accepting this principle. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There are those who are prepared to accept the creation of a new post—quite unnecessary in my view —which entails an additional burden being placed upon the country at a time when hon. Members opposite are arguing against the means test. They must realise what kind of an argument they are putting into our hands. The hon. Member for Gorbals—and it was repeated by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)—pointed out that if you give the Leader of the Opposition £2,000 a year you do not go far enough. You give him £2,000 a year because you wish to make the machinery of the Opposition more effective. You cannot stop there. You must also give salaries to the Whips to make the Opposition more effective.
You are creating an artificial position. You may have, as has been pointed out, two Oppositions or even three, and one that is slightly inferior in numbers may be more influential in other respects. Why should one Opposition be paid and not the other? The House is on the point of creating a new post for a Member of this House and at the same time rendering him immune from criticism in the House.


The position will be anomalous. I wonder the Opposition do not recognise that in order to oppose effectively you have to be independent. This will affect their independence. The essence of the Opposition is independence. No case has been made out for this proposal, and I shall be very sorry to have to vote against it.

8.53 p.m.

Captain Cazalet: I support this proposal. I do not want to go into the history or traditions of the House or into the question of party government, but it does not really seem that there will be many cases in which it is difficult to decide who is the official Opposition. It is the Opposition themselves that decide on their leader, and I do not think that the difficulty is a real one. In any case, as far as things stand to-day, the Leader of the Opposition—more particularly in recent years—has become part of the Constitution. He is a public man; he holds a very definite position. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong, but while he occupies that position he gives up the whole of his life to the fulfilment of it. Many of us, no doubt, regard it as very important that we ourselves should be present in the House, but we can all afford to take a day off now and then without anything very serious happening to Parliamentary business, but the Leader of the Opposition is in a peculiar position in that he has to give up the whole of his time if he wishes to fulfil his functions efficiently.
If that is the case, he has responsibilities—national, public, social, political —in order to maintain that position, and he cannot avoid them under our present system as Leader of the Opposition or as leader of the second largest political party in the country. Therefore, I think he deserves a salary of more than £400 a year. Whether £2,000 is the right figure or not, is a matter for Debate, but if he is to fulfil the functions of the office which he holds, with all the responsibilities which fall upon his shoulders, he certainly ought to have a salary of more than £400. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Chief Opposition Whip?"] The Chief Whip of the Opposition does occupy an important position, but he does not have the same responsibility. I undersand the Whips obey, or ought to obey, the Leader. Perhaps it is the

Leader who obeys the Whips. I have not been in the inner circles; therefore, I do not know, but I do not think the argument about the Chief Whip is valid. It is upon the Leader of the Opposition that the responsibility rests. If he cares to take half the salary and give the other half away, that is his business, but so far as the public are concerned the Leader of the Opposition is an individual to himself.
The Leader of the Opposition may have been Prime Minister, in which case he would get his £2,000 pension, but if he has not been Prime Minister, there is always the possibility that he may become the Prime Minister, and I think it is desirable that any man who may occupy the position of Prime Minister should be entirely independent of outside considerations as far as possible in this imperfect human world. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) said that this proposal would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from being independent. My view is that this will be the very means of making him independent. Every Member of Parliament, whether he has been in the Cabinet and is now a member of the Opposition, or whether he sits on the back benches, may write for the Press or attach himself to trade unions, to co-operative enterprises or other vested interests. He can go into the City and earn something in addition to the £400 a year salary, but it is absolutely vital that the man who is to be Prime Minister, in so far as it is possible, should not have to write for the newspapers or be closely associated with any vested interests. If that be true, then I do not believe that it is an exaggeration to say that the granting of this salary will definitely place the Leader of the Opposition in a position in which he will command even greater respect than he does to-day.
It is important in the interests of Parliamentary government, to which we pay so much lip service to-day, that the position of the Leader of the Opposition should be recognised. It is recognised in the House and outside, and this proposal merely confirms the position which public opinion has already given to the Leader of the Opposition. That being the case, his salary ought to be reasonable, adequate and automatic. There should be no possible question of its being debated, reduced or discussed in this


House, and I believe that this proposal gives him a salary which is reasonable and adequate. If it is paid in the method proposed, he will get it automatically, and there will be no discussion upon it. I hope that in the interests of Parliamentary government few Members will oppose the proposal. I am glad that it is a Conservative Government which has produced this Measure and this particular proposal.

Mr. Ede: I thought it was a National Government.

Captain Cazalet: It is a National Government. I was not using the word "Conservative" in a political sense, but in the sense that hon. Members use it. They refer to the capitalistic class. The representatives of the capitalistic class have introduced this Measure, and I hope that it will be a Socialist Leader of the Opposition who will be the first to get the salary.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: After the very eloquent speech to which we have just listened I find it rather difficult to oppose the proposal, and I find it still more difficult because it is a proposal brought forward by the Prime Minister in a special mariner. There is a second reason which makes me diffident to criticise the proposal, and that is the great respect which I bear, in common with all the House, the present Leader of the Opposition. When I first heard of the proposal I felt that it was right, because the arguments in its favour on the ground of expediency are overwhelming. The Leader of the Opposition holds a position of immense responsibility. He has to devote his whole time and energy to the office. Not only is it responsible work but it is expensive, and in order to carry it out properly he ought to have a staff of secretaries. Even those of us who are on the back benches, if we are to do our work properly require a couple of full-time secretaries, but very few of us can afford one.
While recognising the arguments in favour of the proposal, on consideration I have come to the conclusion that, quite reluctantly, I must oppose it for the reason that it appears to me wrong in principle. It appears to me to be absolutely in contradiction to the whole theory of our Constitution and our whole

traditions. Hon. Members may say: "If all the arguments of expediency are in favour of it, why quibble about a matter of principle and tradition?" but I feel that in these days, when so much of the old foundations and ideas are dissolving and so many of our young people have lost their standards, we must hold on where we can to the essential fundamental principles. What is the origin of the appointment of Ministers? The King originally appointed one secretary, whom he paid out of his own income to do a specific job. As time passed a second secretary was appointed. As the work increased more secretaries were appointed. The King's Secretaries are paid to-day to do a particular work for the King's Government. Surely, it is almost absurd to pay an individual to do everything he possibly can, as is his duty as Leader of the Opposition, to criticise and hinder the work of the King's Government, carried out by the King's paid servants. That is an anomaly.
Even on the question of pure expediency, we are to-day, as we always have been, the great Parliamentary institution of the world. Parliamentary institutions have been attacked in many countries. In the greater part of Europe parliaments have ceased to function. In other countries where they still exist they are being criticised and attacked, and we have to be very careful in this country to hold the Parliamentary institution, I will not say above suspicion, but rather above the suspicion of suspicion. We must not give the faintest opening, either at home or abroad, to the opponents of our Parliamentary institution. We must not give them any grounds for criticism. Hon. Members may think I exaggerate, but last Sunday in my constituency a meeting was held, attended by over 2,000 people. It was addressed by Sir Oswald Mosley and the great proof he produced for his attack on our Parliamentary institutions was this proposal.
I beg hon. Members to realise that this proposal will not only give grounds for criticism in this country to the extreme Right or the extreme Left who wish to destroy Parliament, but also to dictator countries, and particularly countries which wish to establish dictatorships. They will not understand our policy. They will say that it shows collusion for a Government to pay a man to oppose


its policy, and that it shows the folly of Parliamentary institutions. That is not true, of course, but they will not be able to believe that it is not true. I wish I could vote for the proposal, it is so desirable in many ways. I want the Leader of the Opposition to be above financial considerations, and I would suggest that it might be possible to achieve the result we all desire without this flagrant contradiction of paying a man to oppose the Government. Could we not do it in this way? There are pensions of £2,000 a year to retired Cabinet Ministers. Could it not be arranged that one of these pensions should always be held by the Leader of the Opposition? He may not have been in the Cabinet, but some of his colleagues might have been in the Cabinet, and we should get over the appearance of this absurdity. That is what I would suggest.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: When first I heard of this proposal I was instinctively against it, but I did not come to any definite conclusion until I had heard all points of view. I have listened to all points of view and have come to the conclusion that my first instinctive feeling against the proposal was the correct one. I have probably had as much experience, relatively, as any hon. Member of acting in a representative capacity in the working-class movement. I know how difficult it is to be true to the people you represent in certain circumstances. It is relatively easy to represent working-class men and women in this House, and outside. The test is when you are in the workshop and in the pit, when your living is at stake; that is when temptation besets one. Unless anyone has passed through such an experience he cannot realise how great these temptations are. I am convinced that one of the difficulties facing our movement at the present time is the continual sowing, by people who are organised against the working classes of this country, of the seeds of distrust in the ability of the people who represent them to bring about a government which will truly represent the people of the country.
Therefore, I look on this proposal with suspicion. It is a proposal made by a Government to which our movement is fundamentally opposed. I do not doubt the sincerity of hon. Members who sit on the Government Front Bench, but we do

not accept their philosophy and we cannot in any circumstances agree to support them. It is a Government which time after time has refused to deal with the anomalies which exist in widows' pensions, with the anomalies which exist among old age pensions, and which has continually administered a mean means test in a disgraceful way. It is a Government which has refused to listen to continual applications from these benches for an increase to old age pensioners who have to exist on a meagre allowance. Therefore, if we are to be true to these people and to be worthy of them we must look on this proposal as they would look upon it.
I for one, no matter what anybody else does, cannot agree to the proposal. In addition, anyone who has had anything to do with negotiations concerning piecework knows the bait which is always held out in order to obtain a compromise and create an atmosphere which will undermine the stand you are taking up. Having refused to accept such a bait, and having seen men subjected to victimisation for years and years, I am not prepared to accept the bait which is being held out now by the National Government. I hope there will be many hon. Members who will show that they are not prepared to support this proposal by going into the Division Lobby against it; who will show that they are determined to oppose a Government which deceived the people in 1931 and again in 1935. This proposal has for its object the undermining of the confidence of the people in our movement, and I hope we shall rally against it and maintain the confidence of the people we represent in this House.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am going to vote for the proposal. The hon. Member has said that we have no right, when many people are suffering poverty and under-nourishment, to vote considerable sums for anybody. If the hon. Member was logical he would say that the situation was so bad that we should abolish all Parliamentary salaries. That is the only logical consequence of his remarks. But he does not propose that, because he recognises that if a man has to serve his country in Parliament some remuneration is necessary to cover his normal expenses. On the same principle I contend that the Leader of the Opposition is en-


titled to this sum of £2,000. I do not know how it has been arrived at, but I imagine it is the result of long and careful consideration and a calculation of what his proper expenses would be, just as in the case of our own salaries our expenses were no doubt examined. For that reason I was not impressed by the remarks of the hon. Member. Unfortunately I did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but I understand that he made a very impressive speech. I am not so much concerned with the traditions of our Constitution as with what we call democracy. The main point about democracy and its chief claim, as I understand it, is that it enables men of all classes and of all states of society to participate in the government of the country. I support this proposal mainly because it enables a man who is poor, but who has ability and who by his force of character has risen to be the leader of his party, to assume the very onerous responsibilities of leading an Opposition. I support this proposal because it is a method of ensuring that the door of this historic Assembly shall always remain open to the poorest men in the country.

Mr. Maxton: It will never be held by a poor one.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think the hon. Member is clear on that point. Naturally he will not be poor if he has £2,000 a year, but without that he might be quite unable to assume those responsibilities. I think it is idle talk to suggest that there is to be any collusion in this arrangement and to suggest, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), that the Government is to pay someone to oppose it.

Mr. Loftus: My suggestion was that this proposal will give a handle to the opponents of the Parliamentary system to bring that accusation. I did not make the accusation.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think they will do so. This is not really a case of the Government paying someone to oppose it. I suggest that the proper analogy is that of a judge. The Leader of the Opposition is to be paid out of another fund altogether, a fund which is equivalent, as I understand it, to the fund out of which a judge is paid. A judge in the court

is entitled to, and very often does, completely upset an Act of Parliament of the Government, and in that way he may do as much damage as the Leader of the Opposition. I submit that in this case we are appointing an officer, and that the appointment is made not by His Majesty's Government, but by the Crown, by the State, by the nation. It is an appointment which we think is essential for the working of our system, and we attach to that appointment a salary without which we can no longer claim that democracy means the participation of all classes of men in the government of the country.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: This is a Clause on which it is necessary for the Opposition to state its views very definitely. It is not a very easy subject on which to formulate an opinion, but after consideration I and my hon. Friends on these Benches propose to express our approval of the principle of that payment, although, with reference to certain observations which have been made, I would point out that we have already expressed our objection to the whole scale and whole class of payments. In particular, I would explain to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville), in reply to some criticisms which he made, that we have stated our belief that, although some payments might be raised and others diminished, the total pool out of which this whole class of payments are made ought not to be increased.

Mr. Boyce: Including the payment to the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Lees-Smith: Including all payments made under the Bill.

Mr. Boyce: So that the Leader of the Opposition would be paid out of what is normally the Government pool?

Mr. Lees-Smith: The Government pool in the sense that every Member of this House is paid out of Government funds.

Mr. Somerville: Will not the £2,000 a year add to the general pool?

Mr. Lees-Smith: I think there is some misunderstanding. I am speaking now of this particular Clause, but I am reminding the House that I have already said, with regard to the whole range of salaries which is being discussed in con-


nection with this Bill, that I object to any increase in the total burden on the State as a result of the Bill. Therefore, although we have expressed our approval of the increase in certain payments, we have said that that increase should be secured by a diminution in other payments. The reason we do not find any great difficulty in supporting this principle is that we have always regarded it as a democratic doctrine that whole-time public service should be paid. The other doctrine which has been expressed, that those who give whole-time public service should somehow give it out of charity and benevolence to the public, we regard as the old Whig, aristocratic doctrine, which kept all poor men out of public service. We believe that those who laid down that doctrine got a great deal more in other directions than they gave up by not taking salaries.

Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to leaders in public life getting more in other directions than they would have got if salaries had been paid to them. Would that apply to the leaders of the Labour party in the past, men such as Keir Hardie, George Barnes, William Adamson, and the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)?

Mr. Lees-Smith: I was not dealing with individuals, but was saying that the objection to what I called the old Whig, aristocratic principle was that in the long run and on the whole it led to the public losing more in other directions than it saved by not giving salaries. The suggestion has been made in a good many speeches that this salary, or allowance, should be paid by some political organisation. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) rather suggested that, and I was surprised that the suggestion should have come from one who speaks with a very acutely developed Parliamentary sense. After all, there may be general political parties, but inside a political party there is a distinction between the organisation, the caucus if one may so call it, and the Members of Parliament of that party in this House. In all political parties the organisation is to some extent detached from the actual Members of Parliament. Most political parties are organised in that way. That being the case, it seems to me that obviously it is far more dignified and proper

that the Leader of the Opposition, who is selected by Members of Parliament and is the spokesman of Members of Parliament, should receive his allowance from the same source as his colleagues, and not be made into the paid servant of any external organisation.
A good many references have been made during this Debate, especially by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), to dictatorships and to Sir Oswald Mosley and to others of that point of view. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, this proposal is the logical result of our answer, of our whole alternative conception, to that of the totalitarian State. In a totalitarian State no minority is allowed, but we recognise that in any State where there is freedom of opinion, freedom to call your soul your own, a minority is inevitable, and indeed healthy. It is the duty of the Opposition to express broadly the outlook of the minority, and when the hon. Member for Lowestoft says that the Opposition merely hinders the Government, that is not the right perspective of the matter. The Opposition does not defeat the Government; it cannot do it. But it modifies legislation so as to adapt and adjust it to the reasonable demands of the minority of the country. We do modify it. This very Bill has been modified this evening. And in this task of modifying the legislation to suit the minority the Opposition is performing as much a part of the function of good government as the Government itself.
References have been made to dictatorships. The Opposition in a country such as ours is the alternative system to the system of government by civil war. In a dictatorship, if you want to get rid of the dictator there is only one way of doing so; you have to kill him and face civil war and the convulsions which inevitably follow. In this country, by means of an Opposition, you have an alternative Government and, when you want to get rid of the Government of the time, by a perfectly simple process the alternative Government is put in its place. Therefore, the function of an Opposition is to maintain what surely we believe to be the most civilised form of government which the brain of man has yet devised. The Leader of the Opposition is one of the foremost parts of this form of government. I noticed that the hon. Mem-


ber for Lowestoft said that dictators would not understand what we are doing. That is just so. They will not understand what we are doing. It is a thing of which they cannot conceive, because if the House accepts this principle we are exhibiting once again to the world one of those acts of inspired common sense by which we have led the way in Parliamentary government.

9.30 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: There have been some interesting speeches made, and I would like to present to the Committee now as plainly as I can the view of the Government on the matter. It is no surprise to find that this particular proposal in the Bill should be regarded by some people —many people perhaps—as a surprising departure. What we have to consider is whether, when we have selected the considerations which really matter, this is in accord with the true constitutional course of our development. The Government regard this Clause as an integral part of the Bill. No one who heard the Prime Minister's speech on the Second Reading of the Bill will have forgotten the language he then used. He declared that this proposal in the Bill he regarded as his own child. He said that this proposal was one which he had hoped to see carried into law for many years. He said that it was a proposal which he had espoused and pressed on others 11 or 12 years ago, and he expressed his hope, as Leader of the House and a Prime Minister of great experience, that by means of this Bill we should pass it into law. I will invite hon. Friends of mine who have entertained doubts to dwell on that fact. I do not believe that they are likely to doubt the Prime Minister's devotion to Parliamentary institutions or the proper development of constitutional government.
I should like to say a few words about the main arguments that have been used. First may I refer to the line of argument as illustrated in the speech of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) when he said that this really appeared to amount to the payment of the Leader of the Opposition by the King's Government. A number of people outside, hearing that argument, would say, "How absurd of the Government to pay people to oppose it!" but this is not a proposal that the Government should pay anybody at all.

We are discussing here whether this is a proper use for a portion of public money. The Government is no more proposing to make this payment than when it makes a payment to Members of Parliament even when they belong to the Opposition. The question, therefore, has nothing to do with whether it is absurd or short-sighted or foolhardy or quixotic that the people who sit here should offer to pay the people who sit over there. It is an utterly false and indeed an insulting way of regarding the proposal.
The Leader of the Opposition has to discharge very heavy and constant duties and diligent attention to his work is essential to the proper functioning of this House, and he is entitled to something more than the £400 which others get. Suppose that somebody came forward and said, "We think that this £400 should be increased," would anybody say, "Here is a Government engaged in handing out money to Members of the Opposition"? All these things have to be judged from this point of view—whether we are all of us concerned in the administration of public money so as to maintain the proper carrying out of Parliamentary government. The issue is whether that will be best done by adopting this proposal. Is there not a great deal of force in the argument used by the Prime Minister on the Second Reading for recognising the special functions and duties of the Leader of the Opposition? Let me remind the Committee of what the Prime Minister said. The Leader of the Opposition is the one man who must always be here and available as Parliament sits day by day. He is the one man who speaks officially for the main Opposition. He is constantly called into consultation by the Leader of the House in connection with the business of the House. He is one of the principal supporters of the traditions of the House. When some distinguished statesman passes away and the time comes when observations are made by leading men in the House recalling the services of the man who has gone, immediately the Prime Minister sits down Mr. Speaker turns to the Leader of the Opposition, because he is an integral part of the work of the House and he speaks with the authority of those whom he leads. It appears to me that it is on those grounds that there is the strongest practicable reason for supporting this proposition.
There is one other consideration which the Prime Minister put forward, of which I would remind hon. Members. In the old days the House of Commons was a place where Members of sufficient private means were expected to support their existence here without any grant or salary.

Sir Geoffrey Ellis: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that wages used to be paid to Members of Parliament.

Sir J. Simon: I was thinking of times like the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. If my hon. Friend wants to go back to the beginning of things, it is true that there was a time when constituencies had to pay their Members of Parliament, and some constituencies preferred to be without representation rather than pay a Member. If we come down to more recent times, it is the case, even within my own life-time, when the whole conception of the House r f Commons was that it was a place where people were elected who were comfortably off and were able to play their different parts in the Parliamentary arena without any need of payment. Things have so changed—they have changed terrifically in the interest of the Constitution and of democratic Government—that for practical purposes nobody imagines that a man is not well qualified to serve his country here by any considerations of income. At the same time, we have step by step adopted methods which are not a contradiction of our old traditions at all, but a development of them, which have secured that Members who are elected may sit and serve in the House with the support of a modest salary.
I cannot take any other view than that, entirely consistently with that line of tradition, the Leader of the Opposition should be a man who, in view of the heavy work he has to do, is fairly entitled to a salary which is larger than the salary of an ordinary Member of Parliament. Is it right that we should leave uncorrected the possibility that a man who is called upon to hold that office may, because his private means are so small, be pinched and crushed in discharging what is really a public duty? I do not think so. I subscribe to the doctrine that a man who is doing a piece of public work which calls for the whole of his time and energies should properly be remunerated for it. It is certain that

the Leader of the Opposition in many respects has a heavier burden upon his shoulders, if you take the Session all through, than the burden which may fall upon people who sit on the Government Bench, because their work is more intermittent.
With regard to the question that some Members have raised, whether it will uphold or encourage the dictators of the world to support the totalitarian State and to undermine our own democratic institutions, I am certain of this—and the right hon. Gentleman opposite was right when he put it as he did, that the totalitarian States cannot understand it —that it is of the very essence of that totalitarian State for those who are in power to do everything and for everybody else to be swept away and crushed. It is the very essence of Parliamentary and democratic government that we should recognise, however acutely we may differ and however widely we are divided, that. everybody here is discharging to the best of his ability a useful public service. I cannot understand why people who have reflected on the division between the totalitarian theory and the Parliamentary theory can hesitate on which side of the line this particular proposal falls. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) said that the Leader of the Opposition did not start until about 1860. I agree, but the conception that you were discharging a public duty when you were opposing is one of the oldest conceptions in the history of British politics. Will anybody say that Charles James Fox was not discharging a public duty when he was in Opposition? Will anybody suggest that when Mr. Gladstone was on one side of the Table and Mr. Disraeli on the other, one was discharging a public duty and that the other was not, and that when they changed places their respective roles were reversed?
The whole essence of Parliamentary life is that we should bear with such patience as we can the contributions which are made from the other side. Nobody imagines that because he is on this side in a majority he is necessarily written down in the pages of history as being always right—or on that side either. It is entirely plain that if we have regard to the fair application of this conception which we have developed gradually in this country, it must be on the lines of


recognising, as the Prime Minister urged the other day, that we ought to make this change. The Committee will perhaps allow me to read a short passage from my right hon. Friend's speech. He said:
The time was, when I was a boy, when people hardly dreamed that the day would come when there would be large numbers of Members in this House who could not afford to perform their duties here unless they had an allowance; but I think, looking at the whole Continent of Europe, that, the more the basis of our liberty and our Constitution is broadened, the better for our country. Would anyone who remembers the old days here go back to them and give up what we have gained? This Chamber, the most famous Chamber in democratic government in the world, is now open to all, and, once you admit that everybody has a right to be elected to this House if he can, you cannot logically create or leave a financial bar. I am very glad indeed to find that responsible speakers on the benches opposite have realised something of what was in my mind when I first decided, if I were able, to get the remuneration of the Leader of the Opposition included in any Bill dealing with Ministers' salaries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1937; cols. 745–6, Vol. 322.]
I earnestly beg hon. Gentlemen, in whatever part of the House they sit, to weigh those words. They are the words of a man who is no revolutionary and no supporter of dictators, a man who has realised, as we all ought to realise, that our Constitution is a growing thing, and that if you want to make it work you must from time to time make certain adjustments. This adjustment I commend to the Committee with all my heart, because I am convinced that this proposal is one which is entirely consonant with our traditions and is calculated to uphold and strengthen Parliamentary government.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: I feel a little diffident in taking part in this discussion, but I hold very strongly a contrary view to that which the Home Secretary has just expressed, and very similar to that to which I gave expression on an Amendment a little while ago. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the duty and the work of the Leader of the Opposition, and tells us that it ought to be recognised by a grant of public money, I really do think that is rather an insult to the House of Commons and to any man concerned. I speak rather feelingly about this, because I hold very strongly indeed that it

would be better for this House if all of us were on that equal footing which the right hon. Gentleman has now and again said we are. We are not. We are told that if we occupy a certain position we must have more money, and I think that is a terrible doctrine for a democratic assembly. I think all and each of us ought to be willing to give our best service and remain, as we are, equal Members of the House of Commons. I would not pay a man on the Treasury Bench or on the Opposition Front Bench a penny more than the average Member receives. That is the only true democratic principle. But, I may be told, and it is true, a leader of a party has expenses—not for entertainment, but expenses connected with that position because it necessitates secretarial and other assistance. I think the party in opposition ought to pay for that themselves. I express that view very strongly indeed, and feel that any Leader of the Opposition, or of an Opposition, because there is more than one Opposition now, ought not to be paid money on the score that he is giving his fullest services either to the party or the country. If he gives service to the party he is giving it to the country, and I think democracy cannot exist, on the basis which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down, that you must pay because a man is giving fuller service.
I had experience on that Bench for nearly three years and it was not a very easy time or a very easy position, but if the Committee will believe me—and I am no more virtuous than any other Member—I never felt that I ought to be paid more money for doing it. I gloried in doing it, it was a piece of work which I felt rather proud to be able to do, and I think that is the right spirit. I am sorry that the party is going to vote for this. I shall not vote against it, because I believe in loyalty to a decision, but I shall not vote for it. I should not have spoken but for the emphasis which has been laid on money as something which you must have if you are filling a position of greater responsibility. I think that doctrine is much more deadly to the democratic cause than anything I have ever heard before, and I am very sorry indeed that the House of Commons is going to vote this money to-night. If money was needed during my own period in that position it is needed now, but I think that his party ought to find the


money for every expense that the Leader of an Opposition incurs. There ought not to be any question of paying him money because he is doing big service to the community. We ought to be very glad that we are given the opportunity to do it.

9.51 p.m.

Sir G. Ellis: I rise because I have some difficulty, and I know that it is shared by a good many Members on this side of the Committee, about the principle involved in this question. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman on one point because I wished to point out that there is continuity in what is happening to-night. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that after payment of Members by their constituents ceased it was not long before constituencies got into the hands of people who bought them up, and that practice only came to an end with the Reform Bill. By giving the vote to extended classes of people we got proper representation of the people in this House, until eventually we got, as we have to-day, not only the workers as voters but workers as Members of Parliament and obviously when we got to that stage Members had to be paid. As far as members of the Government and ex-members of the Government are concerned, one can well understand that special work by members of the Government should be paid for, and paid properly. One can understand, too, that Ministers who have carried out their work and for a certain number of years have given up other opportunities have thereby earned a pension, and a great many of us would not have any objection to seeing pensions extended, so that among the members of any Opposition sitting in this House, whether they sat in the seats of the regular Opposition or sat here below the Gangway, there would be somebody who was entitled to a pension who could then take on the duty of Leader of the Opposition.
I do not understand what is the principle, historical or otherwise, involved in the contention that we ought to pay somebody who is here purposely to oppose the Government. It is useless to say that one party which may be picked out is the interpreter of the opinion of the whole Opposition in this House. To-day there are three interpreters of Opposition opinion, and is it suggested that the salary should be divided among them, or that it should be given to the leader of

the Opposition which has the greatest number of Members. Is it suggested, further, that parties will always remain as they are to-day, or that we shall always have a two-party Government such as we have to-day? It is not only a question for ourselves in this House, but one which will be debated outside from much broader aspects than some of the aspects discussed to-night. I have listened anxiously to hear some definite principle which is involved, but I regret to say that I have not heard that principle, either logically or in any other way, and this is one of the occasions when I most regret that I must vote against the Government, because I have not been convinced that I should he right in doing otherwise.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I should like to say with what great interest I listened to the arguments of the Home Secretary a few moments ago. I was glad to hear from him that those who in this House are in opposition are performing a valuable constitutional function. It was only last week that I read a letter from the right hon. Gentleman to the Conservative candidate in a by-election. In that letter he referred to the choice for Liberals lying between co-operation on the one side and —I forget his exact words, but they were something like this—useless and sterile criticism on the other. It will be a great comfort to my hon. Friends and myself when we justify our actions in opposition in future to be able to quote the Home Secretary and say that we are performing an essential public task. I would like to say a word about the remarkable justification that we had from the Front Bench of the Official Opposition. The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said that he did not object to the £2,000 being paid, but that he was not in favour of more money being spent as a result of this whole Bill.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I said that I had already expressed my disagreement with the whole range of payments proposed, including that to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Foot: Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that while he thought the £2,000 should be paid, he thought the money should be paid out of the pool.

Mr. Lees-Smith: There is no contradiction in those two statements. I said that the total amount of the burden on the public ought not to be increased, and, therefore, I object to the whole scale of payments suggested by the Government, and in my objection to that scale there was included the payment to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Foot: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward two propositions. First, there must not be any increased burden on the taxpayer as a result of the Bill, and, secondly, the Leader of the Opposition should receive remuneration, whether £2,000 or a lesser sum, and the words that he used in his earlier speech were that the salary of the Leader of the Opposition must come out of the pool. What pool? The only existing pool is the sum total of the salaries that Ministers now receive. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman's speech meant anything, it simply meant that we should name some annual salary to be paid to the Leader of the Opposition, and that we should deduct it from the salary of the present Ministers of the Crown. I do not know whether he thinks any particular Minister should make this sacrifice, or whether he thinks that the hat ought to be passed round among all the Ministers on the Government Front Bench.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that the Leader of the Opposition should be paid because he is the spokesman of a number of his fellow Members, and that, because he is the spokesman of a number of Members of Parliament, he should receive a salary from the same source as Ministers receive theirs. Surely, if that argument applies, it must apply to anybody who is the spokesman of a number of Members, if they are in opposition. But you may have, and we have had before, in this House a position in which you have a number of Opposition parties who may be nearly equal in number. If hon. Members will cast their minds back to the position that arose after the General Election at the end of 1923, they will remember that at that time, I think it was, as a result of that election, there were some 250 or 260 Conservatives in the House, there were about 190 Labour Members, and there were about 150 Liberals, so that there was not a big gap between any of those parties, and the Leader of each one of the parties in those

circumstances was able to speak for a very considerable proportion of the House. We might easily have some situation like that in the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Whatever the division may be, I say that you might have three parties who would be nearly equal in numbers, and nobody surely will say that that could not happen. If there is any substance in the right hon. Gentleman's argument at all, it means that the Leader of every considerable body of opinion in this House would have to receive a salary on that basis.
When I first heard of this proposal, I was rather inclined to be in favour of it, and I think most of us will admit the validity of the arguments put forward from the Treasury Bench in its favour. We should all agree that His Majesty's Opposition discharge just as essential a function in the working of our Constitution as do His Majesty's Government, but it seems to us that there are objections in the working out of this proposal which are quite overwhelming. The principal objection is that this £2,000 is going to be paid in a way in which no other salary in this country will be paid. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Gallacher) a little time ago took the analogy of a judge and said that the Leader of the Opposition in future, with his salary paid out of the Consolidated Fund, would be in a similar position to that of a judge. But he would be in a much better position. A High Court Judge can be removed by an Address of this House, but under this Bill no Address of this House, by however large a majority it may be carried, can possibly remove the Leader of the Opposition. We are putting him in a position which is quite different from that of a judge, and we are putting him in a position which is quite different from that of any Minister, because it will be impossible for anyone to move on a Supply Day to reduce the Vote for the salary of the Leader of the Opposition.
It has been pointed out that in this Bill we introduce a number of constitutional innovations. For the first time we have recognised the existence of the Cabinet, and for the first or perhaps the second time in our Statute law we have recognised the existence of the Prime Minister. But there is a bigger constitutional innovation than that. This is the


first time in any Statute that we have recognised the existence of a party caucus, because we are placing this sum of £2,000 a year, payable out of the Consolidated Fund, within the gift of a party caucus. That seems to me the most remarkable innovation in this Bill.
The point is made, and rightly made, that the function of an Opposition is essential, and we should all agree with that, but in practice—and hon. Members need only look back over the last few year to see it—that opposition does not come invariably from the same quarter. Sometimes when the Government bring forward a Measure the principal objections, I quite agree, will come from above the Gangway here, but in a good many cases in the last few years the principal opposition has come, not from above the Gangway, but from those of us who sit below the Gangway. I will take one recent example. When the Government introduced the Public Order Bill there were a great many objections to it, which seemed to us right, but scarcely any of them were put by hon. Members above the Gangway, with the one exception of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), and when I raised one of the main objections to the Bill, I was answered, not by anybody from the Government Front Bench, but by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). It could not have been better done by anybody on the Government side. My point is that the Opposition does not always come from one quarter.
In the last Parliament we spent a whole Session on one of the biggest Measures, I suppose, which has ever passed through the House, the Government of India Bill. I know there was a certain amount of objection offered to some Clauses of the Bill by hon. Members above the Gangway, but no one who sat through the Debates on the Measure would dispute that the main opposition came from the other side of the House. The main opposition was offered throughout by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and his followers. It was they who were discharging the vital functions of the Opposition. It was they who brought to bear the detailed knowledge which we like to see in our Opposition parties, and who subjected not only the main outline of the Bill but almost every

Clause of the Bill to detailed, searching and consistent criticism, which is precisely what we expect from an Opposition party and precisely the function for which we are going to pay the Leader of one particular party. In spite of the obvious attractions of this proposal, and we all recognise how important the Opposition is, there are overwhelming objections to this proposal of a salary to the Leader of what Lord Snowden the other day very rightly called the least effective of the Opposition parties.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: The Home Secretary in his defence of this proposal made only one real argument which might appeal to hon. Members, and that was that the proposal came from the Prime Minister. Obviously the Home Secretary realised that on his own side of the House there is a great deal of misgiving with regard to this proposal, and he tried to take advantage of the popularity of the Prime Minister to enedavour to get the proposal carried. If that is a sound argument for this proposal from the point of view of the Government benches, I should say that it is correspondingly unsound from the point of view of the Labour benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) reminds me that it was the Prime Minister who introduced the miners' eight-hour day. I take it the Home Secretary would say that the Opposition in the House at that time performed a public duty in opposing the proposal. One of the points that worries me in connection with this proposal is the way in which the Leader of the Opposition in this House is to receive the salary. Although I am not a Member of the Labour party any longer, I still recognise that the Labour party has its great association with the working classes in the country.

Mr. McEntee: Even with you.

Mr. Stephen: Yes, even with myself and my colleagues; and it has the advantage of the association of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. McEntee) and others. The working classes have got to put up with it. I do not want to say anything to hurt the feelings of any hon. Member above the Gangway, but I sincerely say that I recognise that the Labour party, with its close association with the great organised working-class movement in this country, is a


very important organisation; and although I think that the party has taken a wrong turning, I recognise that it is an important part of the working-class movement. It is because of my sincere realisation of the importance of the Labour party in connection with the working-class movement that I feel the great dangers which are incurred in the way in which that party is taking the bait offered to it by the Prime Minister and the Government. After all, hon. Members above the Gangway must realise the interpretation which will be placed on this throughout the country. I think the speech made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) will be a typical reaction of the sincere Labour party Member outside the House, and of the ordinary member of the working classes outside the House. All that is being received for the misrepresentation and the distortion that there will be in connection with this—

Mr. Cassells: On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member's remarks are in order?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is often a little difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member. Especially was it so at the beginning of his speech. He appeared to me to be giving some reason for opposing the proposal of the Government.

Mr. Logan: He is in the eighteenth century now.

Mr. Stephen: I am suggesting to the Committee, and specially to hon. Members above the Gangway, that this is a very dangerous proposal, which will have a very adverse effect on the working-class movement in the country. I may be wrong or right in that respect, but I want the Committee to realise, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has said, that this does introduce definitely into a Statute for, I think, the first time, the idea of a party. Consequently, I am trying to get hon. Members of the Committee, who hold that they represent more directly the working-class movement, to realise the dangers implicit in the acceptance of this proposal. After all, in the past, the Opposition has had to face the position that its leader was unpaid. There was never any indication from the Labour Opposition that they wanted this new

paid office in their party. Many difficulties will follow from the machinery which will be necessary to set up this office. In later parts of the Bill are definitions with regard to that machinery, and it is obvious that there will be many interesting situations in the future.
The Labour party are making a tremendous mistake, and the working class in this country will suffer as a consequence of that mistake. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) spoke about the functions of the Opposition being to modify the proposals of the Government, but that is not exactly the language which he would use on the platform, either at the next General Election or at a by-election. According to his statement they would make the means test a little less objectionable than it is, but on the platform their function would be defined as fighting the Government tooth and nail and driving them out, making an end of them. Now we are told that the function is to examine, moderate and limit the Government's proposals. As a result of exercising that censorship over the Government's proposals, the Leader of the Opposition is to receive £2,000 a year. I do not believe that the Labour party will gain anything from it. If the Labour party are willing to be bribed by the Government, for heaven's sake let them get a big enough price. [Laughter.] Yes, I say it deliberately. Do not let them sell themselves for a miserable £2,000.

Mr. McEntee: You are giving yourself away.

Mr. Stephen: I believe this proposal of the Government will weaken the official Opposition in this House, and that there is no necessity for it. No member of the party has, in the past, been debarred by his poverty from being Leader of the Opposition. That has never occurred to them. I believe that the poor working-class folk will suffer because of the line that has been taken by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, and I hope that even yet hon. Members will reconsider the position and go into the Lobby against this proposal of the National Government.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I want to express a personal feeling to-night on this matter. A difficulty has arisen, but it is not of our making; it has been rather placed upon us by the Government. I do not suggest


that the Prime Minister, in embodying this proposal in the Bill, had any ulterior motive. I believe that he was serious and genuine in his consideration for the financial obligations imposed upon the Leader of the Opposition. But look at the position of a member of the Labour party to-night. I have consistently, with others, opposed this Bill Clause by Clause. I have spoken against it, and the House has tolerated my saying something very vicious about it. But when we come to this Clause I find to my horror that there is an utter collapse of the opposition. I cannot help thinking, at least to myself, that, when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are fighting their next General Election, they will be saying, "The Labour party fought this Bill, but, when it came to £2,000 for themselves—" I can hear them saying it. Quite frankly, I do not want to be charged in that way. I oppose this Clause as I have opposed the other Clauses of the Bill. If the principle is bad, it is bad all through.
Something constructive might be offered to the House. The Leader of the Opposition, whoever he may be, has a good deal of work thrown upon him, and I cannot see why the House should not come to some reasonable agreement that a staff, paid for by the State, should be put at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition for the purpose of carrying on much of his secretarial work. I am only going as far as that, but I think something like that should be done. When, however, it comes to paying the person occupying the leadership of the Opposition in the House, I suggest that it would be far more honourable if that payment were made out of the funds of the party responsible for the leadership of the Opposition. I think that that would be far better, and I think it would be consistent to admit that in the debate on this point, seeing that we have taken the line that we have in criticising the Bill so far.
I want to say at once that the contribution of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) will stand out as one of the finest contributions to the discussion so far. I see no answer to it. I am more or less feeling my own personal way through the impasse into which we have been thrown by the Government, and I cannot help observing that, while the Whips have been operating to secure the

passage of the Bill so far, yet, when we come to this Clause, some loyal supporters of the Government have even to-night declared that they are going to refuse to abide by the Whips' dictate when the vote is called; so that politics are not altogether kept outside this discussion. In the second place, strong as my opposition was to the Bill at the outset, the longer I have listened to the Debate the more do I feel myself beginning to get converted. We heard the Home Secretary's eulogies of the Opposition; we heard him say how important it was, and why it was, that the Leader of the Opposition should get £2,000. We heard what was said about his lieutenants, the Whips, who are so necessary to help him maintain his Opposition. I begin to think that, if the Debate goes on much longer, we shall all have to vote ourselves £2,000 before we finish. In order to avoid that, I think it would be better that we should take an immediate decision on this question, because I want still to preserve my faith that this Bill is a bad Bill. It would be far better to try and enlist more voluntary effort on the part of men in this country to serve the State—voluntary effort such as was expressed in definite and clear terms by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). It would be far better that we should do that than that we should come to such a materialist conception of the functions of men who try to do something for the State and gauge their ability and their efforts in terms of monetary reward.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: I feel bound, as a Conservative, to support this Clause, and I do so for the following reason. There was a time when the Leaders of all Oppositions were men of means, men who had money of their own, and who were able and in a position to take on that leadership without feeling the pinch if they had to spend a definite amount of money. More and more as time goes on we are going to have poor men at the head of Departments, whatever they may be, and we want to give the fairest possible deal to whomsoever may happen to be Leader of the Opposition. He may have to live entirely upon his salary, which may be only £400, a year, and he may have a family to keep outside London. He has at the same time to be


in the position to have secretarial help, and he has always certain expenses to face which are not faced by the ordinary man. In the time that lies before us it would be a shame if the Leader of the Opposition had to be selected because he had private means or if he had to get the money from some other source. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) may suggest that his own party ought to subscribe the extra money, but it would be a poor thing if the Leader of a party was put in the position of a paid servant of the party because he was in Opposition and his party had to pay in order that he might have a living wage.

Mr. MacLaren: Who paid Disraeli?

Mr. Raikes: Whoever paid Disraeli has nothing to do with the year 1937. We are dealing with the present, and not with the past. There is the possibility that a Leader of an Opposition without much money will receive temptation from vested interests to which no Member ought to be subjected. There are some vested interests—I do not mind whether they are capitalist or co-operative—always looking out for an opportunity of making their power felt. It would be an extraordinarily bad thing if a Leader of an Opposition, however honest he might be, should have a hint raised against him by his political opponents that he was being subsidised by some interest outside. The Leader of the Opposition plays a constitutional part in Parliament, because under our system of party Government you have to have a Leader of the Opposition, and it is not at all a bad thing that the State should see that he is in a position to play his part without having any sneers cast against him by any other party in the State. If the Leader of the Opposition were freed from the bonds which attach to a great many men without much money of their own, it would be good not only for the Opposition but for the nation as a whole to realise that the best man can lead any party in opposition irrespective of what his finance, or lack of it, may be.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: It is with very great regret that I find myself unable to support the proposal of a salary for the Leader of the Opposition, not because I

think that £2,000 a year is too much remuneration, but because I consider it to be antagonistic to every constitutional principle that the Leader of the Opposition should be paid a salary under our present system. There was no argument used by the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) but would apply equally to any hon. Member of this House carrying out his duties as a Member for the full time. At least 70 per cent. of the Members of Parliament have to give practically their whole time to these duties. If, therefore, the remuneration which they receive is not sufficient, the remedy is to raise the salary of every Member of Parliament until it is sufficient upon which to live in decency.
I listened with great patience to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and I really wondered why his tongue did not cleave to the roof of his mouth. Would he, if he were in this position, be supporting the acceptance of that salary? Would the present Prime Minister, if he were in this position be supporting it? Would the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) be supporting it? I am glad to think that the Leader of the Opposition has not expressed his support of this proposal, and is leaving it to the general and unfettered opinion of Members of the House. I sincerely hope that hon. Members on the other side and on this side will vote against it.
We have heard all sorts of ridiculous talk about His Majesty's Opposition. That was a phrase conceived as a joke, and as a joke it has been used ever since. I heard that denied by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the other day. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) claimed that the phrase originated in Gilbert and Sullivan's opera he said that it was Mr. John Hobhouse who originated that phrase. I have been at some pains to look up its origin and I find that though that was correct, it was a phrase which was, in fact, originated as a joke in the year 1871. The original reference to it concludes with the words:
The joke originated with Mr. Hobhouse.
I am extremely sorry that I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for


Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) when he says that the duty of the Opposition is to modify. We might as well resolve ourselves into a Council of State where hon. Members all do their best to persuade, mould and reflect in some slight degree the policy of the Government. My conception of the duty of the Opposition is not to go as far as one authority had it, namely, to watch the Government in their progress and to trip them up even before they fell. That might be carrying it too far, but it is certainly to resist with all our strength, both on the Floor of the House, by every permissible party means, and in the country, a proposal which we believe to be unsatisfactory from the point of view of public policy. If it is to be the subject of reward and pay to criticise and propose, why do we not carry the principle further and pay those who spend their whole time endeavouring to displace each one of us in elections throughout the country? What is there in the argument used which does not apply to payment being made to the candidates who oppose each one of us in the country? We are paid here in our representative capacity. We are not paid because we belong to the Opposition or to the Government. We are paid because we represent our constituencies in this House, and it is an entirely new principle to put forward a proposal that the Leader of the Opposition should be paid.
There is one subsidiary matter to which I would draw attention, and that is that the Speaker of the House of Commons is to have cast upon him the duty of deciding who is the Leader of the Opposition.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is an Amendment on the Order Paper to deal with that question. If the hon. Member talks on that now, I shall be unable to select that Amendment.

Mr. Garro Jones: I have not given any indication what my argument is going to be. It generally takes two or three sentences in order to indicate what point an hon. Member is trying to develop. This is my point. If the Speaker is to be asked to choose who is the Leader of the Opposition, at the same time that the Opposition are to have a voice in choosing who the Speaker is to be—those will be the circumstances in which these difficulties will arise and they will synchronise at the same time that both parties—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member had better put that point when we come to the specific Amendment. It appears to be more appropriate to the Amendment.

Mr. Garro Jones: I will leave that point and, with great respect, will put my point in this way. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition and every other Member of the House ought to be paid a salary to live upon in reasonable comfort. I would, in passing, comment upon the strange paradox by which a large number of Members of the Conservative 1922 Committee, who are supporting this proposal—I hope with their tongues in their cheeks—spoke with great vigour at their meeting, according to Press reports, against the raising of salaries of Members of Parliament. I hope they will be able to reconcile those differing views, inconsistent as they appear to be, with their consciences.
The policy of the Government for the time being is the policy of the State. The Prime Minister is at the helm and he is paid to conduct the ship of State—to use a very old metaphor—in a certain direction, and we are now going to pay the Leader of the Opposition for his duties in endeavouring to steer that ship a different way. I think the position is a ludicrous one. It is most unfortunate that it has been accepted, if it has been accepted by this party, and for my part I shall vote against it in the sincere hope that the proposal will be defeated.

Mr. Ede: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the Committee is prepared to come to a decision.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I think it is only right that those members of this party who intend to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) should have the opportunity of saying, in a few sentences, why they intend to take that course, after the speeches of hon. Members who take a different view. In view of the very cheap party point which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) tried to make and the views of the Noble Lord, who used to belong to us but now finds himself more at home with the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends, we are entitled to say a few words.


[HON. MEMBERS: "Who is the Noble Lord?"] Lord Snowden. The only people who use invective now are the leader writer of the "Morning Post," dealing with his opponents, and Lord Snowden dealing with the people who, he thinks, are his friends. We have to face the logic of the history of this House. One hundred years ago there was a property qualification before a man could be a Member. It is true that it was evaded in many ways, and some of the most distinguished men who sat in this House when the property qualification was in existence had property provided for them by people who desired to see them in Parliament. When Macaulay was defending the Reform Bill of 1831 he said that he could not defend it if it meant giving power to the working classes, and he gave as he thought good reasons, in strict accordance with the principles of Liberalism, for denying the working classes opportunity for political power. We have seen that disappear. There is now no property qualification for this House. Men have come into this House from receiving unemployment benefit, and have left the House to start drawing unemployment benefit again. It is useless to try to defend, in a House which can be so constituted, things which might have been quite applicable 100 years ago.

The Leader of the Opposition has to face expenses which do not fall upon other Members of the House. He is largely responsible for selecting such things as Supply days, which is really an effective way of keeping the control of the House over the ordinary administration of the Executive. He has to perform a great many duties which involve expenses of a secretarial kind which he cannot avoid. Are we to say that the man who is to hold this position shall have an income of his own which will enable him to meet the expenditure, or is he to get it from some party fund? Shall members of his party pay £10 or £15 a year towards providing him with the necessary funds? Is the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) prepared to pay his L15? Or are we to have the money provided by the State. I am in favour of the State doing it, because I shall then pay my share in the ordinary taxation of the country. In view of the history of the development of this House we are doing the logical thing in supporting the proposal which has been placed before us by the Government, and I shall have no hesitation in following the lead given us by the right hon. Member for Keighley.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 41.

Division No. 177.]
AYES.
[10.43 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Emery, J. F.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Channon, H.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)


Albery, Sir Irving
Charleton, H, C.
Fildes, Sir H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Charlton, A. E. L.
Findlay, Sir E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cluse, W. S.
Furness, S. N.


Amnion, C. G.
Colfax, Major W. P.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.


Apsley, Lord
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Gibson, R. (Greeneck)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Craven-Ellis, W.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Balniel, Lord
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Grant-Ferris, R.


Barr, J.
Crooke, J. S.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Ctuddas, Col. B.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Culverwell, C. T.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Dalton, H.
Grimston, R. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Groves, T. E.




Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bellenger, F. J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdara)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Donner, P. W.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hannah, I. C.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Drewe, C.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Brass, Sir W.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Harbord, A.


Broad, F. A.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hartington, Marquess of


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Burke, W. A.
Duggan, H. J.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Butler, R. A.
Eastwood, J. F.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Ede, J. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.


Carver, Major W. H.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Cassells, T.
Elmley, Viscount
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)




Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Penny, Sir G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Holmes, J. S.
Petherick, M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hopkinson, A.
Pilkington, R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Porritt, R. W.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Price, M. P.
Sutcliffe, H.


Latham, Sir P.
Procter, Major H. A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lathan, G.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Leach, W.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Leckie, J. A.
Ramsbotham, H.
Thurtle, E.


Lees-Jones, J.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Tinker, J. J.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Liddall, W. S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Logan, D. G.
Remer, J. R.
Turton, R. H.


Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wakefield, W. W.


McCorquodate, M. S.
Ridley, G.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ross, Major Sir R. O. (Londonderry)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


McEntee, V. La T.
Rowlands, G.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Walkins, F. C.


MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Watt, G. S. H.


Magnay, T.
Salt, E. W.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Welsh, J. C.


Marshall, F.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Selley, H. R.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Shakespeare, G. H
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wilson, C. H. (Attereliffe)


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Short, A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Simpson, F. B.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Oliver, G. H.
Somervell. Sir D, B. (Crewe)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sorensen, R. W.



Paling, W.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Palmer, G. E. H.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Parker, J.
Spens. W. P.
Ward and Captain Hope.


Parkinson, J. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Acland, R. T. 0. (Barnstaple)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Potts, J.


Batey, J.
Griffiths, G- A. (Hemsworth)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Harris, Sir P. A.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Cocks, F. S.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Daggar, G.
Hollins, A.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kelly, W. T.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Loftus, P. C.
Stephen, G,


Ellis, Sir G.
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacLaren, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Foot, D. M.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
White, H. Graham


Gallacher, W.
Mander, G. le M.



Garro Jones, G. M
Maxton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Sir Hugh Seely and Mr. Buchanan.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Provision for payment of salaries and pensions.)

10.53 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, to leave out:
except that payable to the Leader of the Opposition.
The purpose of the Amendment is to decide, the Leader of the Opposition with a considerable majority having just voted that he should have a salary, whether that salary should be discussed by the House or not. If you have a Leader of the Opposition who is taking

a full part in the affairs of the House of Commons and you are paying him a salary, the first act of the House of Commons should not be to put that Leader in the same position as anyone who is drawing a pension or in the same position as the Chair, beyond discussion. If discussion is good for the Government it is good for the Opposition of the day. It is raised on some sides that the Government might always defeat the Opposition Leader on this matter. I have sufficient confidence in the House of Commons and the way it has managed various affairs for a very long while to realise that if the Leader of the Opposition's salary was open to discussion it


would be raised only on such occasions as were in the best interests of the House.
You have innumerable Ministers and you discuss them on different days and you generally find that discussion takes place on a big subject. If you had the Leader of the Opposition down for discussion you would find that you would not discuss him on his merits as a leader, but the discussion on such occasions as might be thought necessary would be on matters dealing with the freedom of the House of Commons itself. I can imagine a Leader of the Opposition whose salary was subject to discussion pointing out various difficulties which were being created by the Government of the day by an intensive use of the Closure, by all-night sittings, or by other methods that can be used by a Government for suppressing the Opposition. The idea of paying the Leader of the Opposition is novel and many of us have not thought it out very long. There is a great difference of opinion in the party above the Gangway upon the subject, but I have supported it because I think it will fit in with the constitution of the House of Commons. I do not see any reason why the Leader of the Opposition should be placed above the Ministers of the Crown and be free from criticism.

10.57 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: If my hon. Friend will reflect a minute or two, he will see that the position of a Minister of the Crown, whose salary is subject to an annual vote, is very different from that of the Leader of the Opposition. The reason why the Vote of the Minister of the Crown is presented year by year is in order to subject his administration and policy to the criticism of the House. It would be very unfortunate—and I do not see any reason for it, certainly no such reason as is applicable to a Minister—if the salary of the Leader of the Opposition should come before the House year by year.[Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman opposite reminds me that the Leader of the Opposition gets his criticism week by week from his party, while a Minister of the Crown gets his criticism only year by year. I do not think that this is a practical proposition.

10.59 p.m.

Captain Harold Balfour: The explanation of the Minister of Health has not

satisfied me on one point. It seems to me as a matter of principle that, whether this Amendment is accepted or whether the salary of the Leader of the Opposition should be a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, it resolves itself into an answer to the question whether the Leader of the Opposition is paid as a Member of the Executive or as a Member of the Legislature. He is not a servant of the House. He interferes—I do not say offensively—whether positively or negatively does not matter, and he is taking some part in the executive administration of the country, even though it be of a negative character. Constitutionally, we have never allowed in our form of Government any member of the Executive to take refuge from being answerable to the Legislature for his actions. As the functions of the Leader of the Opposition are to some extent, I claim, executive, his salary should equally be submitted to the decision and approval of the Legislature. It is only a matter of degree, because although we charge his salary to the Consolidated Fund there is machinery whereby this House, if it so desired, could cut off the Supply granted to him. It would need special procedure and a special resolution but it could be done, because the Legislature is, thank goodness, supreme in this country.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If such a Motion were carried it would mean that the Opposition here would have to choose a new leader to please the other side.

Captain Balfour: No. If such a Motion were put down all it would mean would be that the Leader of the Opposition would have to submit his executive functions and his executive actions to the decision of the Legislature. That is part of our Constitution, because no Member of the Executive is allowed "to get away with it" without being responsible to this House.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the hon. and gallant Member tell us what are the executive functions to which he refers?

Captain Balfour: The executive functions of the Leader of the Opposition are to see that the positive Executive performs its functions satisfactorily according to the views of the negative Executive. I submit that the Committee ought to consider whether we are not throwing away our control of the executive machinery


of the country if we admit that the Leader of the Opposition is in some form part of the executive machinery. If he is not part of the executive machinery he is part of the legislative machinery and not a servant of the House. Before we part from the subject we ought to be told by one of the Law Officers whether the Legislature is in any way abrogating its authority over the Executive.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: This is only the first of many difficulties in which we shall find ourselves as a result of this proposal. The hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) asked whether the Leader the Opposition was being paid as a member of the Executive or as a member of the Legislature. Obviously he is not being paid in either capacity. If he were being paid as a member of the Executive he would need to have the confidence of the House of Commons. The only people who can appoint him to this legislative assembly are his constituents. Therefore, he is not in either of the two classes to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred.

Captain Balfour: What is he?

Mr. Garro Jones: He is Leader of the Opposition. His duty is to thwart the legislation proposed by the Government. The proposal that his salary should be placed upon the Consolidated Fund means little or nothing. The salary would still be at the mercy of the House of Commons. We should not be making the Leader of the Opposition independent of the majority of the House of Commons by placing his salary upon the Consolidated Fund. True it would then be a little more inconvenient to get the salary of the Leader of the Opposition stopped, but we know that it could be done within a week if he aroused the ire of the majority of a Conservative House of Commons. As time goes on we shall regret the work we have done this day. I therefore say that I have no objection to the proposal that this salary should be placed upon an annual Vote, in order to give us as frequent an opportunity as possible to rectify the blunder which we have committed.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I was wondering, when the last speaker was speaking about the salary of the Leader of the Opposition being on the Consolidated Fund, whether

we should be in a position to challenge the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition, and inasmuch as he is elected by the hon. Members above the Gangway, would that mean that in the House of Commons practice in the future there would be an opportunity always, when the Consolidated Fund came before us, to have a general criticism on the question of how Members above the Gangway were performing their duties of election with regard to a Leader? I would like the Government to tell us what is going to be the position with regard to that matter. A Motion for a judge's dismissal can be put down, but what is to be the position with regard to the Leader of the Opposition? Are we only to have an opportunity of opposing the Vote for the Consolidated Fund, or what will the position be? I think we are entitled to a little more information than we have received so far from the Minister of Health. I suppose that members of the Government will have gone into the position fully and should be able to give the Committee more information than we have had as yet. Are we to have an opportunity of dealing with the party above the Gangway either in not electing a Leader properly or in not dealing with him properly for not carrying out his duties better. I am also wondering whether the suggestion might be made that they should also lose their salaries because they were not carrying out their duties properly in this connection.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: There have been four speeches in favour of the Amendment, and it is obvious, from the very short speech of the Minister of Health, that the Government have not yet thought out the position, so that, in order to give them further time to think it out, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Capacity of persons to whom salaries are payable under Act to sit and vote in House of Commons.)

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, to leave out "fourteen," and to insert "fifteen."
There is one point which I can explain in a few sentences, and which, I think, the Committee will believe I am justified in raising. The point is one which surprised me when looking through the Bill. I came to the conclusion that it was not intentionally included in the Bill. We are dealing now with the Clause which lays down the number of Ministers who are to sit in the House of Lords and the number who are to sit in the House of Commons. As the Preamble to the Bill explains, at the present moment, by law, there must be sitting in the House of Lords two Secretaries of State and three Under-Secretaries. The Bill, in place of a Secretary of State, substitutes a Cabinet Minister. That is, of course, obviously sensible, because now by the Bill all Cabinet Ministers have equal status. But it happened that I spent an hour, when going through this Bill, in doing some very diligent sums in arithmetic. I found, by working out those sums—they were really only sums in simple addition—that as this Clause works out, the final result is that there will be three Cabinet Ministers in the House of Lords and two Under-Secretaries. That is to say, that the House of Lords is to have one less Under-Secretary but to have one more Cabinet Minister.
I am bound to say I was surprised to find that by a side issue in this Bill an alteration was made in the balance of the Cabinet, without a word having been said about the matter at any time during the Second Reading Debate. I had prepared. I may say, a very powerful philippic on this attempt to introduce this extraneous matter into the Bill; but last night I found that the Home Secretary had put down an Amendment which makes it clear to me that this particular result of the Bill was not intentional. Therefore, I will merely now ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation of his own Amendment.

11.13 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: I think that the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the Bill as it stands on this point is right, and I have to represent to the Committee that it was really not intended to produce the result which the Bill would produce as it stands, and that a correction ought to be made. If the Committee will turn to page 8 of the Bill, and the First Schedule, they

will there, very quickly, follow how the mistake has arisen and how, I think, the right hon. Gentleman would probably wish to correct it. As the Bill is drawn it provides for a distribution of Ministers between the two Houses only so far as they are found in Part I of the First Schedule. Part I contains, I think, 17 individuals, counting eight Secretaries of State; and the Bill as it stands, says, in Clause 9, that of those 17 not more than 14 should sit in this House, which would mean that three must sit in the other House. In fact, at the present moment, only two of the Ministers mentioned in Part I are sitting in the House of Lords. There was never any intention to alter the balance.
The way in which I think it would he best to adjust it—and I hope the Committee will agree with me—is to accept the Amendment and to say that, as far as Part I is concerned, we should change the Bill so that 15 instead of 14 of the names there mentioned should sit in the House of Commons. On the other hand, I think we should provide in Part II of the Schedule that not more than three of the four Ministers mentioned there should sit in the Commons; that leaves one for the Lords. That represents the present distribution. At present the House of Lords' proportion is secured only by reference to Secretaries of State. That has always been rather absurd. It has been rather ridiculous to say that if we put the Secretary of State for War in the Lords he counts as one, but if we put the First Lord of the Admiralty there he does not count at all. It is an archaic conception. Now, if the Committee agree, by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, coupled with my own, we shall maintain the balance in this way: two of those in Part I shall not be Members of the Commons and therefore Members of the Lords, and one of those in Part II shall not be in the Commons but would be in the Lords. I think that would meet the case, and I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for putting down an Amendment. I am sorry the slip was made.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I have no doubt that the answer to a point which I wish to put to the Home Secretary is obvious to those who have studied this matter carefully,


but I do not quite understand how it happens that Ministers who are not in the Commons must necessarily be in the House of Lords. If that be the case, I shall be very glad to hear it. We all know of cases in which right hon. Gentlemen who failed to secure election have held the seals of office for a long period without having had seats in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords.

11.19 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt know the constitutional position. There is, of course, no legislative provision which so requires, but it has always been secured in fact by providing that not more than so many Secretaries of State shall sit in the Commons. The working of the Constitution requires that Ministers shall be found in one or other of the two Chambers, except for very short intervals. There was the well-known case in the life of Mr. Gladstone when a General Election was held when Mr. Gladstone had ceased to be a Member of this House, and he could not carry on a Government unless his Ministers were in one or the other Chamber. It is something more than a constitutional convention; it is a necessity to our Parliamentary life. Therefore it was substantially correct when I spoke of distributing Ministers among the two Houses. The hon. Gentleman was quite right when he said that it is not a part of any Statute; it is the way in which our Constitution has worked for a very long time, and there is no need to change it.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Barr: Is it not the case that for a long time this House was without the presence of the Lord Advocate because he had failed to obtain a seat after contesting several elections? Is it not also the case that we were without a Solicitor-General for Scotland just now, and that there was no Minister of Agriculture when, persecuted in one seat, he fled to another and was out for a considerable time? I gather from what the Minister said that it must be for only a very short time, but evidently that has not always been so in practice.

Sir J. Simon: I apologise for interposing again, but I want to answer the question

which the hon. Member has put to me. I was speaking of the Ministers who are referred to in the First Schedule; I was not referring to the presence or absence of a particular Law Officer. There have been cases when Ministers, not of the sort mentioned in the first and second parts of the Schedule, have been absent from the House, sometimes for a short time, and, in the case of the Scottish Law Officers, sometimes for a very long time. In the particular instance mentioned by the hon. Member, it is true that the Minister failed to get elected in, I think, more than one by-election running, and perhaps the hon. Member will recollect that he ultimately gave up his office.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. If he will accept my Amendments and add the Amendments that he has put down, it will completely meet the difficulty that I found.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 5, line 13, leave out "and," and insert:
(b) the number of persons entitled to sit and vote in that House while they are Ministers of the Crown named in Part II of the said Schedule shall not exceed three; and."— [Sir J. Simon.]

In line 16, leave out "twenty-one," and insert "twenty."—[Mr. Lees-Smith.]

In line 20, after "Part I," insert "or in Part II."

In line 29, after Part I," insert "or in the said Part II."

In line 34, after "Part I," insert "or in Part II."—[Sir J. Simon.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Interpretation and determination of questions.)

11.18 p.m.

Captain Balfour: I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, to leave out from "by," to the end of the Clause, and to insert "Resolution of the House."
Under the Bill as it stands, in certain circumstances, the onus of selecting who is to be the Leader of the Opposition rests upon Mr. Speaker, and the Amendment proposes that the decision shall be by a Resolution of the House. The reason for the Amendment is twofold. I think that Mr. Speaker is put in a wrong position by the proposal of the Bill, both as regards the constitutional position and as regards the position of Members in the House of Commons. As regards the position in the House of Commons, we vote and control Supply, and there is machinery whereby we should dispute the position of the Leader of the Opposition; and, if the circumstances which would require a decision as to who was the Leader of the Opposition should arise, we should, by inference, be criticising Mr. Speaker's action, Mr. Speaker's conduct of affairs. As regards the constitutional position, while there is theoretical freedom on the part of the Crown, in the event of a Government defeat, to send for whomsoever the Crown likes in order that he may form an administration, the Crown sends for the person whom his advisers, say is most likely to form an administration, and this theoretical freedom is in effect translated into sending for the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, in certain eventualities we are putting on Mr. Speaker the duty of selecting the next potential Prime Minister. If the Amendment were accepted, the responsibility for such a nomination would devolve upon those to whom the person selected would have to look for support and confidence in order to form an administration.

11.27 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: I think I shall be able to satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his ingenious suggestion cannot be adopted. We are dealing with a rare case in which doubt arises. If we only remember the part that Mr. Speaker plays every day in dealing with the affairs of the House,. I do not think we shall doubt that he is qualified to remove this doubt. In fact, he is removing it by his own action almost every day. Before I put these words before the House, I thought it proper and respectful to communicate with Mr. Speaker, and he informed me that, if the proposal

were approved by the House, he would accept the task. I think this is the proper way to do it. There are other purposes analogous to this for which Mr. Speaker sometimes certifies. He does it under the Parliament Act, and there are other matters in which we are accustomed to call upon him in his official capacity. I do not think it would be proper for the majority of the House to decide this on because, after all, they would necessarily be deciding it at a time when the individual to be selected was leader of a minority.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: The Home Secretary has failed to point out a fact which applies equally to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposal and to the proposal in the Bill which he wishes to stand. This brings us to the second impossible position the first of which I referred to earlier. We have a Member very gravely rising in his place and proposing that the leader of a minority party shall be chosen by the majority of the House as a whole. If we conceive the position that there are two candidates for the leadership of this party, one with views that approximate to those of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour), he will be entitled to canvass his friends under his proposal to secure a majority for the candidate of this party of whom he most approves. Nor is the position any better if we leave the Clause as it stands.
The Home Secretary told us that he had secured the assent of Mr. Speaker to carry out this invidious task. We shall find ourselves in this position: We shall be returned one day afer a general election. There will be neither a Speaker in the Chair nor a Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker will be contemplating whom he will appoint as Leader of the Opposition, and the would-be leaders of the Opposition will be contemplating whom they will appoint as Speaker. I cannot think that that will be a satisfactory position. Even if the Speaker were appointed and there was a cleavage of opinion as to who should lead this party, it would be an absolutely impossible and invidious position if a decision were left to Mr. Speaker or anybody else except this party or that party. There is no provision here that Mr. Speaker should be guided by a


majority vote. Under this proposal, if 200 Conservatives voted for the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and 199 voted for the present Home Secretary for that leadership, Mr. Speaker, perhaps preferring the good looks of the Home Secretary, might choose him in preference to the leader chosen by the Conservative party.
As we go further we shall find that this is a farcical proposal. It is an impossible proposal to put upon the shoulders of Mr. Speaker, who is not competent to exercise it. If he exercise it rightly there may be no criticism, but if he exercises it wrongly or even in a case of genuine doubt, he will create for himself endless doubt and dissatisfaction, which ought not to be placed upon the actions of one whose prime duty is to be impartial in his functions in the House of Commons. He will arouse the gratitude of the man whom he choses and his followers, and he will arouse the animosity, if not the anger of the minority leader and those who support the leader whom he does not choose. I still hope that this proposal will find its way to the Statute Book.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: The proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Capt. Balfour) does not meet the case. The Opposition only are entitled to select the Leader of the Opposition. The House of Commons has no right to say who shall be that leader. In considering the position with which the Clause is meant to deal of two parties nearly numerically equal, I remember that when I first entered Parliament the Labour party for the first time were the official opposition. There was a considerable section of Liberals who thought that they should be the official Opposition, and I remember the struggles that used to take place for seats on the front Opposition Bench. The late Lord Oxford, the right hon. gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and several other ex-Cabinet Ministers belonging to the Liberal party sat there, and there was daily a good deal of amusement among hon. Members in watching who was able to get nearest that Box. At that time the Liberals were fewer in number than the Labour party. There were about 20 of them, and there was a good deal of feeling among Conservatives that the

Opposition were really the Liberals. If one assumed that the numbers of the Opposition parties had been more equal, the Speaker, under the terms of this Bill, could have picked out the leader of the party he believed to be the right one.
What happens? The party whose man is not picked as Leader of the Opposition will never forgive Mr. Speaker. Immediately, he will cease to be Mr. Speaker to that party. To them he will become a party man. He will have gone on the party basis. That party might be 100 strong and it could give the Speaker a very uncomfortable time. Even a smaller party can be very active in this House—even a party of four. [Interruption.] I have contributed my portion as much as any of my sneering critics. I have done my job with as much cleanness as other people. When I hear about the Opposition keeping their record clear, I remember that the one man belonging to their party who brought discredit to it always had a considerable income. The men who never brought discredit to it had no income. Under this proposal Mr. Speaker will be called upon to select a particular man. He will do so, and there will be a powerful group who will never forgive him, because they will think that their man should be the Leader. They will make Mr. Speaker's life intolerable. I remember one occasion when the hon. Member who now represents Gorton (Mr. Benn) took an active part in certain proceedings affecting the Speaker. Mr. Speaker had done something which the Liberal party thought was wrong and they put down a Motion censuring him. That Motion was backed by two Cabinet Ministers, Sir Alfred Mond, who became Lord Melchett, and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). From that day Mr. Speaker Whitley ceased to be the Speaker he was before. You could feel the change in the atmosphere. Within a short time he passed out.
That is what would happen under this proposal, and everyone knows it. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Garro Jones) said, it is an impossible position, and the more you examine it the worse it becomes. It means Mr. Speaker making a party decision which in a few weeks might be upset. We have had recently a record number of by-elections. Such elections might change the strength


of two parties in Opposition; the largest one day might become the smallest the next. In those circumstances is Mr. Speaker's choice, already made, to stand for the four years or so of that Parliament or will it be necessary for him to make another choice? The Leader he may have selected will have ceased to be Leader of the largest Opposition party. The Clause says:
'Leader of the Opposition' means that member of the House of Commons who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to His Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in that House.
The Speaker decides. The Leader of the Opposition is to be appointed by the edict of the Chair. It is an impossible position. Without being offensive I suggest that they may not always be the largest party. There was a time when the late Keir Hardie was here alone, and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) may one day be the leader of a bigger party. And if we have proportional representation it may alter entirely the present grouping of parties. These are consideration which should be borne in mind.

11.42 p.m.

Sir Irving Albery: We are dealing with important constitutional matters upon which we have not had sufficient guidance from the Government. This is a proposal under which Mr. Speaker is to be responsible for designating the Leader of the Opposition in writing.

Sir K. Wood: indicated dissent.

Sir I. Albery: The Subsection says:
If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to His Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive.
It is not long ago that a right hon. Gentleman ceased to be the Leader of the Opposition and another right hon. Gentleman took his place. What would happen in such a case? And suppose there were a split in the Opposition, and the Leader

no longer represented the entire Opposition or even half of it, and was not willing to resign, saying that he held his office under the authority of Mr. Speaker. I want to know what Mr. Speaker would do in such an event? These are important issues and we are not giving sufficient consideration to the serious nature of the alterations we are making.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: As things are at the present time in the House there would be no difficulty at all, and because there would be no difficulty the Government are inclined to treat this matter too lightly. I remember the time when there used to be trouble on the front Opposition bench and appeals to Mr. Speaker as to which party was the Opposition. I remember that we were asked to be early in our seats to keep the Liberals from occupying them. The point I wish to put to the Government relates to the words:
the party in opposition to His Majesty's Government.
We have had so far no definition of that phrase. One can conceive the possibility in the future of there being certain people who are associated together and who take general action together, although they may not belong to the same organisation. For instance, above the Gangway there was the Socialist league and there is the Cooperative party, as well as the Labour party. Are the members of the Co-operative party to be deducted from the numbers of the Labour party? We ought to be clear about this.
Moreover, there is in the House a growing number of independent members. The Universities have gone in for independent representation. There might be an occasion when two opposition parties were fairly evenly balanced: would the independents in such a case be taken as the determining factor if they could give the majority to one of the rival leaders of the Opposition? There have been movements on the Continent with regard to the popular front. In such a case, it is conceivable that, while the individual parties might remain, they would all be working in co-operation as the members of a party of the popular front. In a situation of that sort, who would decide? If Mr. Speaker said he was going to treat them as individual parties and have no


regard to the fact that they acted together co-operatively and considered themselves as a party of the popular front, the position would be an impossible one.
I believe one of the difficulties is due to the fact that there is no definition of what is meant by "party." In the normal course of events, that has not created great difficulties. In the 1923 Parliament it might well have been that the Liberal party might have decided not to put the Conservative party out of office. In 1923 there was a sufficiently near balance; some Members who took the Tory whip generally speaking might quite well have said they were going to take the whip of the Liberal party. What evidence are we to have as to the numbers of a party—Is acceptance of the whip to be regarded as entitling a Member to be regarded as a Member of the Party? I think that the previous Prohibitionist Member for Dundee received the whip of the Labour party. I think the Nationalist Member, Mr. Joe Devlin, received the whip of the Labour party; I know that he was always informed by the Labour party of the proceedings in the House, and I think he regarded it as getting their whip. This is a matter that has to be cleared up. We are not legislating for this particular minute of this particular Parliament, but for the future, and the Government ought to make this matter much clearer than it is at the present time.

11.50 p.m.

The Attorney General: I need not say that we appreciate any anxieties which have been expressed by those who have spoken as to the question of putting new duties on Mr. Speaker and the important points raised in the discussion. I would, however, like to point out what is the exact position in the Bill. We have already passed the principle that there shall be a salary or allowance to the Leader of the Opposition.

Sir P. Harris: An honorarium.

The Attorney General: I think that there were 41 members who thought that there should not be a salary, and more than 200 who thought that there should be. We have already passed the definition of the Leader of the Opposition:
'Leader of the Opposition ' means 'that Member of the House of Commons who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to His Majesty's Gov-

ernment having the greatest numerical strength in that House.'

Mr. Garro Jones: The hon. and learned Member has just said that we have passed that.

The Attorney General: So we have.

Mr. Garro Jones: We have not yet passed the Clause.

The Chairman: We have come to art Amendment in the Clause which is past the passage to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Buchanan: But we have not passed the Clause.

The Chairman: The definition cannot now be amended, though the Committee can refuse to order the Clause to stand part of the Bill.

The Attorney General: The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen)—

Mr. Stephen: And learned.

The Attorney General: And learned.

Mr. Stephen: I only say that because I hear you giving it to so many others.

Mr. Ede: And revered as well.

The Attorney-General: He has never exemplified that the learning which he and I both possess in common is needed more than in the speech which he has just made, because, when one comes down to the practical application of this Clause, I seriously suggest that not only is there no difficulty about it but the burden which it is said is imposed on Mr. Speaker is of exactly the same character as that which he is performing daily in the conduct of our business. On every Thursday afternoon, for example, he calls on the Leader of the Opposition. After Question time he frequently calls on the Leader of the Opposition to put a private notice Question. There is occasion after occasion when Mr. Speaker performs, not exactly the same, but analogous duties in the day-to-day conduct of business. Towards the end of every Debate, when other hon. Gentlemen may rise, Mr. Speaker calls on one particular right hon. or hon. Gentleman.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: The appointed leader.

The Attorney-General: I do not appreciate the relevance of that.

Mr. Davidson: The Speaker calls on the already appointed leader, the leader appointed by the Official Opposition.

The Attorney-General: How does he find that out?

Mr. Davidson: Ask the Chief Whip.

The Attorney-General: The point is that he has no difficulty in finding it out.

Mr. Maxton: In this Parliament.

The Attorney-General: I quite agree that the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may look forward to a time—

Mr. Maxton: We are looking back at a time.

The Attorney-General: I must look forward.

Mr. Buchanan: We all know you look forward. No Attorney-General ever does anything else.

The Attorney-General: We all look forward, but you can take any Clause in a Bill and with academic ingenuity find a hypothetical case where its application will cause difficulties. When, however, we consider the daily conduct of our business and the duties which Mr. Speaker performs, and realise that in an Act of Parliament it is impossible to provide in words for the kind of cases which are extremely unlikely to arise, I suggest that this Sub-section makes provision for every eventuality.

Captain Balfour: In view of the remote possibility of the contingency arising, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Consequential Amendment of Enactments.)

Amendment made: in page 9, line 23, at the end, insert:

The Air Force Constitution Act, 1917 (7 &amp; 8 Geo. 5, c. 51). In subsection (2) of section nine, after the words 'Air Council,' there shall be inserted the words 'other than the Secretary of State and any Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.' "—[Sir J. Simon.]

Fourth Schedule agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN proceeded to propose the Question, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended."

Mr. Garro Jones: rose—

The Chairman: The hon. Member must wait until I have finished putting the Question.

Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended."

Mr. Garro Jones: May I make a plea to the Home Secretary, if he cannot make any alteration here—

Mr. H. G. Williams: On a point of Order. Has it not been ruled in the past that this Question cannot be discussed?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman does not know the ingenuity of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones). I do not know yet what he is going to raise, and whether he has discovered something he can discuss on this Question.

Mr. Garro Jones: I must apologise for my unseemly haste in rising before, but the interval between the question being put and the collection of the voices has become so short of recent years that it is necessary to be prompt in order to get up at the psychological moment. I rise to appeal to the Home Secretary to endeavour to get some alteration to Clause 10 in another place—

The Chairman: The hon. Member has certainly not been sufficiently ingenious this time. He cannot discuss Clause 10 on the Motion to report the Bill.

Bill reported, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MEMBERS' EXPENSES) (No. 2) BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.